The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO081_HOAG MASTER PLAN I IIRRII IIII III IIRI NIIIII IIIII RIIII IIII III IIN TP0087 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 1, 1992 TO: Traffic Study 81 File SUBJECT: Hoag Master Plan Documentation Traffic Study No. 81 was part of the comprehensive Hoag Hospital Master Plan project which included: Amendment No. 744 Development Agreement No. 5 Variance No. 1180 EIR No. 142 Planning Commission public hearings were held on: 12-5-91; 1-9-92; 1-23-92; 2-6-92; and 2- 20-92. City Council public hearings were held on: 3-9-92; 3-23-92; 3-30-92; 4-13-92; 5-11-92; and 5-26-92. Traffic study data is included in EIR No. 142 Supporting documents including all staff reports, minutes, correspondence, etc., are found in Amendment No. 744 and/or EIR No. 142 files. jm\misc\ts81file.mem CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department X❑ Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) Public Services Division x P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. NameofProject. Hoag Hospital Master Plan, EIR No. 142, Traffic Study No. 81 Variance No. 1180 State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: 89061429 Patricia Temple 714 / 644-3225 Project Location: 301 Newport Boulevard and 4000 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CountOrange California Project Description: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and the approval of a Traffic Study and Variance related to the adoption of a Master Plan for Hoag This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on May 11, 1992 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) 1. The project®will ❑ will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ® An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures® were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations El was ❑was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings® were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225 r May 13 1992 Environmental Coordinator Si a re Date Ttle Rcviscd 11-91 ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES REGULAR coDNclz MEETING 'f(� PLACE: Council Chambers l� �f TIME: 7:00 P.M. DATE; May 11, 1992 INIlEXX ROLL CRLL Charles Wilson of Southern California Edison Company presented two rebate checks totallin $9,840 to Council Member Hedges for ene y efficient lighting in connection with the do Isle Street Lighting project, as wel as a "Excellence in Energy Management Award" because of the City's participat in six separate energy conservation pr rams last Year. Gordon Kilmer of the eutal Quality Affairs Committee, and Co oil Member Watt, Liaison to the C ittee, presented Beautification Awards to Michael Krasel, student at Corona d Mar High School, and ' Marshall Duffield, ectric boat builder. Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL Motion r. B. Read of the Minutes of Meeting of All Ayes Apr 27, 1992, was waived, approved as Y tteu, and ordered filed. Motion C. Reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes raso1417tions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Sansone opened the continued public hearing regarding: A. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-3, Ord• 92-3 being, Hoag Hsptl Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (94) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ESTABLISH PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND ADOPT A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOAG HOSPITAL. THE PROPOSAL WOULD ESTABLISH REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LONG TERM BUILD-OUT OF ACUTE AND NON- ACUTE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES AN AMENDMENT TO DISTRICTING MAPS NO. 22 AND 22-A SO AS TO REDISTRICT THE HOSPITAL PROPERTY FROM THE A- P-H AND U (UNCLASSIFIED) DISTRICTS TO THE P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT); AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20.02 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO AMEND THE HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES MAP AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE 26/35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION DISTRICT TO PLACE THE LOWER CAMPUS WHOLLY WITHIN THE 32/50 FOOT BRIGHT LIMITATION DISTRICT; AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT [PLANNING COMMISSION PCA 744 AMENDMENT No. 744]; AND Volume 46 - Page 155 CITY OF NMMRT BEACH CaMIL HEMMERS MINIM May 11, 1992 INDEX 'ROLL CPLL B. Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-4, Ord' 92-4 being. Hoag Mstr AN ORDINANCE APPROVIN DEVELOPMENT Pin/Delp Agm No. 5 AGBBE0= NO. 5 FOR THE, HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN, AND C. TRAFFIC STODY 110. 81 - A request Tfc Stdy by Hoag Hospital to approve a 81 Tra££ic Study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the .Hoag Memorial Hospital master plan of development; AND D. VARIANCE A0. 1180 •- A request by Variance Hoag Hospital to exceed the Base 1180 FAR -gf 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of 0,65 consistent with the Provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Lower campus: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. Upper campus: Parcel No. l of Record Survey 15-30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. Report from the Planning Department. Report from the City Attorney regarding Hoag Development Agreement. Supplemental report from the Planning Department. The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, five additional letters were received from the following in favor of Hoag's proposal: Mark Soden, J. Robert Fluor and Martha Fluor, ' William E. Bracey, Henry K. Swenerton, and Carol Chapman. in addition,, six letters were received in 0000sition from the following: Roberta Hazlett, Grace R. Bissonnette, Ann and Lloyd Dietz, Roslyn Snow, Jan D. Vandersloot, M.C. , and Richard L. Winegar. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, referenced her Supplemental Report stating that staff has developed an alternate approach to the Wetlands mitigation issue•, and it is included in the straw vote listing, this concept would be to allow the hospital to proceed through the Corps of Engineers review process for their fresh water mitigation program and whatever the Agency determined to be the Volume 46 - Page 156 r &ITY OF NWORT BUM COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CRLL May 11, 1992 INDEX appropriate ratio for mitigation would Hoag Hsptl be as required in the course of their normal permit process. This would then allow the city to 'entertain optional mitigation in an area of the City of more local concern, such as the Semeniuk Slough. This concept has been reviewed with the Public Works Department and they estimate the cost of that potential improvement in the range of $175,000 to $200,000. The staff report also includes a description of the alternate setbacks on West Coast Highway as suggested by Hoag Hospital at the last meeting. Ms. Temple stated that in addition to the above Supplemental Report, the City Council received a further report last Friday, summarizing the additional issues and concerns raised-by members of the general public in regards to conditions of approval and mitigation measures applied to the Hoag Hospital project. These issues concern: q Buildinf[ on or Near Earthquake Faults - There has been an on- going concern regarding this matter, and should the City Council wish to consider a standard to preclude development on any active or inactive fault, it should be addressed as a local amendment to the uniform building code. It should be pointed out that a requirement this stringent may severely limit the development potential of many building sites in the City. She has discussed this item at length with the Building Department and they believe this issue can be adequately addressed through the review of technical engineering documents that is involved in the issuance of a grading permit. o Compliance with Reaulatory Requirements - Concern has been expressed that the hospital facilities, particularly the methane gas flare facility either is, or will not be in compliance with important and applicable regulatory standards. It is important to note that all development is required to comply with all applicable law. To clearly indicate this, staff suggests the following additional mitigation measure: "The methane gas facility and all building on the lower campus shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable, including, but not limited to, the Faderal Regulation contained in 29 CFR 1910, the State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and the regulations of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Volume 46 - Page 157 S . *CITY OF NEMRT BEACH* 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES Hay 11, 1992 INDEX ROLL CR11. Association. Prior to the Hoag Hsptl issuance of building permits on the lower campus, the project sponsor shall submit to the Newport Beach Fire Department a compliance review report of all the above referenced laws and regulations."' p Indevendent Testin¢ and Analvais - It has been suggested that t e technical engineering reports submitted as part of the building permit process be prepared under contract to the City instead of the applicant. It is the position of staff that this is not necessary , for two reasons. Engineering reports submitted in support of a building permit must be submitted by a registered engineer, who incurs liability for its contents. Since these professionals are liable, it is not expected that the reports will be slanted to the applicants advantage. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach employees engineers to review plans and reports for adequacy. If the reports are determined to be in any way deficient, corrections will be reqquired prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. o Relocation of Xildl_i� - It has been suggested t at wildlife, particularly fish and amphibian life, living in the wetland area be relocated prior to the destruction through filling of such wetland. Staff does not know whether the Resource agencies would make such a, requirement, or whether they would allow such a relocation to occur. If the City Council desires to impose this requirement, the following language is suggested: "Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the fill of the wetland area, the project sponsor shall, in a manner and location acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California, Department of Fish and Game, relocate fish and amphibian wildlife if said relocation is determined by those agencies to be appropriate." o Critical Care Addition Straw 'Vote - A question has been raised as to the intent of the straw vote on III I the setback for the critical care/surgery addition. in defining the prolongation of the line of the cafeteria, the intent of the language is to use the existing building which houses the cafeteria and laboratory, or the line of the access road as it curves easterly towards the Voluae 46 - Page 158 c *ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES CODICIL MEMBERS May 11, 1992 INIIEX ROLL CflLL loading dock and parking Hoag Hsptl structure, as presented by Hoag Hospital on April 13. 1992. o Privacy Screening of Critical Care Addition - It has been suggested that the design of the critical care/surgery addition include louvered or lattice window screens for the purpose of insuring the privacy of residents of Villa Balboa. The following additional mitigation measure is suggested: "The design of the critical care/surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility." o Straw Vote Issues - It has been suggested that the order of straw votes be altered to resolve the issue of the bicycle bridge contribution prior to the other public benefit issues. Therefore, it is suggested that item 11 be voted on by the City Council following item number 8 and before items 9 and 10. o Additional Air 0uality Analysis At the request of the AgKD, a CO analysis is incorporated into the environmental documentation. In repose to question raised by Council Member Watt regarding the Wetlands Location and Mitigation Ratio, Ms. Temple stated that in working with the resource agencies to data, it is staff's understanding that the mitigation actually required as part of the 404 permit process, and the Coastal Commission process, it is likely to be very close to 1 to 1; rather than the 1.5 to 1 recommended by the Planning Commission. The suggestion is to leave the fresh water mitigation program to the jurisdiction of the appropriate resources agencies, but in lieu of establishing a larger minimum fresh water mitigation of 1.5 to 1, to allow the hospital to pursue an optional improvement in Semeniuk Slough, which would be supplemental to' whatever actual mitigation was required by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Commission as part of their 404 and Coastal permits. If the City establishes a ratio of 1.5 to 1, Volume 46 - Page 159 *CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH O CWNCIL MEF® E MINUTES - CALL May 11, 1992 ROLL INDEX and the Corps of Engineer says Hoag Hsptl that 1 to 1 is sufficient, the hospital would still be required to pursue a permit for 1.5 to I- if a minimum is not set, it will just be a determination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Fish and Game Department. The City Attorney stated that just pprior to the City Council meet ng, he distributed a revised draft of the proposed Development Agreement which contains changes to the original agreement proposed by Hoag. The revisions that have been made are in response to concerns by City Council, as well as input from the general public through the testimony at the public hearing. He summarized the differences between the original document proposed by Hoag Hospital and the document currently under consideration. He stated that the agreement does not give Hoag "carte blanche" to improve their property any way they want; however, it does authorize Hoag to develop their property, but only if they comply with conditions and limitations imposed by the Council in the Master Plan and as a result of CEQA. Hoag must also satisfy numerous conditions before they begin any construction whatsoever. The agreement further establishes a ceiling which prevents Hoag from requesting any additional entitlement and the City Council is prevented from granting any additional entitlement. The term of the agreement has been reduced from 40 years to 25 years, and the provisions relating to annual ,review have also been changed to conduct such review at a public hearing, including a detailed analysis of the views impacted', if any, by the construction on the site compared to the views that are depicted in the EIR. A provision was also added in the agreement which requires Hoag to hold the City harmless with respect to any loss or claim related to the grading or excavation of the slopes+ And lastly, a provision was added that requires Hoag to enter into an agreement that would transfer the responsibility of the ownership of the flare on the property. There are also discretionary approvals required with Phase II and III, which includes a traffic study and detailed view analysis. Council Member Hart referenced a new drawing on display designated as "Conceptual Sketch - Hoag Hospital," which she pointed out Voluae 46 - Page 160 +CITY OF NWORT BEACH. CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES Hay11, 1992 INOD( ROLL CFILL was a little different than what Hoag Heptl the City Council had seen in the past. At this time, the City Council straw- voted the following issues: 1. Wetlands: a. Shall the wetlands be preserved on site or mitigated off site? Council Member Watt commented that she preferred to leave the wetlands on-site if the conditions are not met relative to earthquake fault, soil stability, etc. Green On Site Red x x x x x x x Off Site b. What shall the mitigation approach be? Council Member Watt stated she would like to deal with the mitigation issue separately, and then the Semeniuk Slough project as a benefit that would be in addition, and therefore she would vote for the single site. Green x x Single Site, fresh water mitigation. Red x x x x x Dual site, 1:1 (min) fresh water mitigation plus potential Semeniuk Slough project. 2. Critical Care Surgery Addition: a. Shall expansion for 'the surgery addition be allowed on the west side of the existing tower? Green x x x x x x Yes No Red x b. If yes, what shall the required setback be? Green Easterly line of service access road. Red x x x x x x x Prolongation of the westerly line of the cafeteria including to the point of intersection. 3. Lower Campus Height Limits: a. What shall the height of the cancer center expansion areas (Zones D & G) be? Green x x x x x 3-Story, 57.5 MSL Red x x 2-Story, 45 ft. MSL Volume 46 - Page 161 CITY 'OF N WORT BEACH O v CODICIL MDMM MIRM May 11, 1992 CHLL NO- ROLL \\\\ b. Which height limitation Hoag Hsptl system shall be adopted? Green P.C. Recommendation (same as Hoag request). Red Alternate Homeowner's Propposal (57.5, 52# 41 feat MSL)? Council Member Plummer suggested an alternative to the above two options; to reduce one additional foot for the rear building envelope adjacent to the bluff, and to further enhance public views and provide a more aesthetic appearance along Pacific Coast Highway, to reduce the height of the front buildings an additional 3 feet. She stated this would mean that the buildings along the back portion of the bluff would be reduced an additional foot. The reduction of 3 feet in the front would allow for some views to Coast Highway from the bluff area. Since it is the height adjacent to Coast Highway which has the greatest effect on the view from the bluff, this reduction is significant. Council Member Turner indicated ha felt Council Member Plummer's suggestion is a modification to the P.C. recommendation, and also ties into straw vote item 4.b. (which has mot yet been considered) and deals with the setbacks westerly of the signal. Ms. Temple, in response to question raised regarding height limits, commented that as Council Member Plummer indicated, the zone system of the alternate homeowners proposal is entirely different and runs in the opposing direction to the Hoag request (P.C. recommendation)., so the height limits are very difficult to compare. She stated that basically, with the exception of the area near the cancer center, the height limit of the homeowners ,proposal in the rear edge of the proparty that is closest to Villa Balboa, is 57.5 feet above mean sea level. The option which Council Member Plummer has offered would in Zone A have that rear line to be 67 feet, in Zone B, the rear line would be 63 feet, and in Zone C, the rear line would be 59 feet. In terms of the Coast Highway side of the envelopes, the homeowners' request for most of the area is 41 feet or 52 feeti and in the option offered by Council Member Plummer, the height limit in Zone A would be 62 feet, in Zone B, 57 feet going down to 53 feet, and in Zone C, 51 feet. She stated that simply put, the homeowners' option is still lower than the alternate proposed by Council Member Plummer; however, the option proposed by Council Member Plummer is less than that recommended by the Planning Commission. Volume 46 - Page 162 V it *ITY' 'OF NWORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES flay 11, 1992 INDEX ROLL CHLL Hearin no further comments, the white Hoag Haptl White x x x x x x light vas assigned to Council Member Red x Plummer's option,, and the vote was taken. 4. West Coast Highway Setback: a, What shall the basic setback easterly of the entry signal be? Green x x x x x x 15 feet 25 feet Red x b. What shall the basic and articulation setbacks westerly of the entry signal be? 34, 40, and 45 feet Green 45., 55, and 65 ,feet Red x x x x x x x (Alternate Hoag proposal) 5. Shall articulation requirements be enacted as recommended by the Planning Commission? Green x x x x x x x Yes No Red 6. What shall the Newport Boulevard setback from Hospital Road to 600 feet south be? Green x x x x 20 feet Red x x x 25 feet 7. Should the depth of the linear portion of the view park be increased from 20 to 60 feet? Green Yes Red x x x x x x x No 8. Should the development standards contained in the P-C Text include a requirement that all above grade parking be covered? Council Member Turner suggested that the. following language be on added to the "yes" porti of this straw vote: "to a distance of 100 feet from the service road." Council Member Turner stated the reason he is recommending the above addition is because he felt it would not be in the best interest for preservation of views. He indicated that should Hoag decide to put a parking Volume 46 - Page 163 CITY OF NMRT BEACH, Y COUNCIL !EP®E E MINUTES may 11, 1992 INDEX ROLL CALL structure on this site, then it Hoag Hsptl would be required to be covered. Hs. Temple commented that the intent of item No. 8 is that it applies to only parking which is above grade, and it would not apply to at-grade surface parking. Following discussion, the Council decided to first straw vote this item as presented (without Council Member Turner's amendment). Green x x x you Red x x x x No In view of the foregoing, no further action was taken on Council Member Turner's amendment. ,At this time the Council straw- voted item No. 11. il. Should the City require Hoag Hospital to increase the size• of the view park dedication by an area appraised at $250,000 in lieu of providing funding for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge? Mayor Sansone stated that he was opposed to the bicycle bridge and that he will be voting a ainst this issue, for the following reasons: "There is considerable amount of landscaping included in this project, and the County Sanitation District has a plan approved and funded to run a reclaimed water line, to their Sanitation District No. 5 plant in Huntington Beach, which is in close proximity to where the City will be crossing the Santa Ana River with our fresh water line. This gives us an oppportunity to use the $250,000 mentioned here toward the funding of bringing reclaimed water into the western part of the City. I don't know when, the reclaimed water line will be completed at their plant, but I do know that CalTrans has already ' requested that they be granted access to that line to Pacific Coast Highway for use on the median strips on the highway west of the Santa Ana River bridge. When the Volume 46 - Page 164 ti QITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS May 11, 1992 . INDEX ROLL CRLL Sanitation District Hoag Hsptl approved the water line initially, I was assured at that time that there was sufficient capacity in the line to take care of any of Newport Beach's demands in the western part of the City. Therefore, I would like to propose that the subject $250,000 in lieu of being spent for a bicycle bridge or increasing the size of the view park be earmarked toward funding to provide reclaimed water to the western part of the City." Council Member Cox suggested that at this time, straw vote item No. 11 be voted on as presented, and to consider Mayor Sansone's proposal later in the meeting. Yes Green X Red X X X X X X No 9. Shall the City require the hospital to construct a minimum 6 foot wide sidewalk and make landscaping improvements in the CalTrans right-of-way along Newport Boulevard? The Public Works Director advised that his Department estimates the landscaping improvements , including grading, retaining wall construction, and a small amount of drainage, to be roughly $140,000. Council Member Turner .suggested as an alternative to the yes/no straw vote, "that subject to further study and analysis, the $250,000 be earmarked for improvements in the area of the City generally located between PCH and Newport Boulevard in a north/westerly direction." Council Member Cox stated he shared the concerns of Mayor Sansone with regard to the reclaimed water project. However, at the same time, the City is attempting to improve the appearance and landscaping of the area surrounding Newport Boulevard and PCH; and therefore, he suggested that the $250,000 be used for the reclaimed water project and landscaping improvements on Newport Boulevard. volume 46 - Page 165 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH* COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CRLL May 11 1992 INDEX Council Member Hart spoke strongly Hoag Hsptl for the need to improve Newport Boulevard in this area and the importance of the sidewalk, and urged that the Council move ahead to require that Hoag be financially responsible for completing the landscaping on their property. Following consideration, item No. 9 was amended to reflect that the $250,000 originally proposed for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge be applied to the construction of a 6 foot wide sidewalk and landscaping improvements on the CalTrans right-of-way along the Newport Boulevard as first priority, and that the remaining funds be applied to providing reclaimed water to this area. Gteen x x x x x x x Yes Red No 10. Shall Hoag Hospital make a contribution to the construction of a bicycle/ pedestrian bridge over Superior Avenue as provided for in the Newport Beach General Plan and recommended by the Planning Commission? Green Yes Red x x x x x x x No 12. Development Agreement. a. Shall the project approval include the approval of a Development Agreement with the alterations recommended by the City Attorney? Council Member watt stated she will be voting against the Development Agreement because she cannot conscientiously see the reason for .such a ,document. She does not think it would essentially harm any party not to have it, and she also thinks it could prove to be a cumbersome thing for the City, and even possibly the hospital. Green x x x x 'x x Yes Red x No b. what shall be the term of the agreement? Green x x x x x 25 years Red x x 10 years Volume 46 - Page 166 S I TY OF NEWPORT BEACH 10 COUNCIL FRS MINUTES May 11, 1992 IPIIOEXX ROLL CEN1 Mayor Sansone immediately Hoag Hsptl requested his vote be changed to 25 years because he wants the opportunity in the future to ask for reconsideration of this item should it be necessary. He also stated he objects to the 25 year term as he does not believe that successor City Councils should be "saddled" with the decision made this evening. At this time, motion was made to straw-vote the addition of the two mitigation measures set forth in the staff report and enumerated earlier in the meeting relative to the methane gas facility, and the privacy screening of the critical care addition. Green x x x x x x x Yes No Red Motion x In concluding this subject matter, Ayes motion was made to close the public All A Y hearing and take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 92-43, accepting, approving and certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 142; 2. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; 3. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; 4. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; Volume 46 - Page 167 OC I TY OF NWORT BEACH COUNCIL MDM"1 S MINUTES May 11, 1992 INDEX ROLL Cfi.l 5. Re-introduce proposed Ordinance Hoag "Hsptl No. 92-3, and pass to second reading on May 26, 1992, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN A!ffi®NEST RE-ZONING TUB PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN FROM THE A-P-& AND THE U DISTRICTS TO THE P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT, AMENDING CHAPTER 20.02 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE, HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES MAP AND THE LEGAL DESCRIP- TION OF THE 26/35 FOOT HEIGHT LTMITATION DISTRICT AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RoAG HOSPITAL (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT No. 744); 6. Re-introduce proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-4, and pass to second reading on May 26, 1992, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN (DEVELAFAENT AGREEMENT N0. 5); 7. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 81 and Variance 1180. -2. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing GPA 91-10) regarding GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RD. 91- (45) 1(B) - Request to consider adoption of a Growth Nanagement Element of the General Plan In compliance with the requirements of the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance approved by the voters of Orange County on November 7, 1990 (Measure M). Report from the Planning ,Department. It was noted that compliance with the proposed ordinance is required in order to maintain 'the City's eligibility for its share of sales tax revenues raised under Measure M. Other required components include participation in interlurisdictional planning forms, development of a 7-ye capital improvement program, and adoarption of a transportation demand management ordinance. Volume 46 - Page 168 I y O I TY OF N WORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS May 11, 1992 I�QX ROLL CRI1 Council Member Watt referenced handwritten page 10 of the staff report, goals and objectives, and suggested that the statement referring to the basic objective be amended to add "walkways" that meet the needs of all cyclists "and pedestrians." The Public Works Director responded that inasmuch as the language set forth in the staff report is already in the City's Circulation Element, that document would have to be amended. In view of the foregoing comment, Council Member Watt withdrew bar recommendation, but stated she wanted the idea to remain "food for thought." Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 92-44 All Ayes 92-44, approving the Growth Management Element of the General Plan (GPA 91- 1(B)] . 3• Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing CDBG Prg regarding proposed "STATEMENT OF FY192-93 COMMUNITY DEVE7APMENT OBJECTIVES AND (87) PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS" for the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, 1992- 199E FISCAL YEAR. Report from the Planning Department. It was noted that in order to participate in the CDBG program, the City Council must annually adopt a "Statement of Community Development objectives and Projected Use of Funds" for use in preparing the submission to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for CDBG funding. CDBG funds may be used for a variety of programs which include: land acquisition, clearance, and disposition; the acquisition, development or improvement of public service and recreational facilities in low income areas; public/social services; relocation assistance; and residential and commercial property rehabilitation. The City's major emphasis and allocation of funds for the last ten years has been in the area of low income housing and assistance to the homeless. In response to questions raised by Council Member Hedges, the City Manager advised that Craig Bluell of the Planning Department, as well as a contract employee who handles the majority of the day-to-day paper work, administer the CDBG program for the City. With respect to the $59,476 allocated for administrative costs, he stated that amount is most modest in comparison to the five cities he has worked for, especially considering the extensive amount of auditing, monitoring, etc. required. Volume 46 - Page 169 4 ObITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MGM MINUTES ROLL CflI L may 11, 1992 INDa( Sandra Weber, Newport Heach reaidant and affiliated with the South Orange County YWCA - Hotel for Homeless Women, expressed appreciation to the City Council for their financial support through the CDBG program. Robin Jaruschewaki, representin Interval House Crisis Shelters, stated that this was the first year they have received financial support from the City of Newport Beach and they were very grateful. Hearing no one else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 92-45 92-45, authorizing the City Nanager to All Ayes submit the Final Statement, including all understandings and assurances contained therein, in order to apply for a HUD 1992-93 Community Development Block Grant, to act as the official representative of the City in connection with the submission, and to sign contracts with appropriate subagents to carry out programs in the approved budget. 4. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing Ord 92-14 regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-14, Zoning being, (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 10 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 706 AND 708 WEST BALBOA BOULEVARD AND 717 WEST HAY AVENUE, FROM THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) DISTRICT (PLANNING COMMISSION ARMMENT NO. 751). Report from the Planning Department. It was noted that the applicant (Newport Harbor Yacht Club), is proposing to rezone Lots 11, 25 and 26 from the R-1 and R-2 Districts to the 0-8 District as it is the Club's intention to demolish the structure s on these lots and utilize the properties for the expansion of the off-site parking lot associated with the Club. A use permit was required in order to expand the off-site parking lot on property located in the R-3 District in 1971. However, since the applicant is now attempting to rezone the property to the O-S District, a use permit will not be required for the expansion of the parking, lot. Although this application concerns only a zone change, the Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval in conjunction with shielding of the light sources in the parking lot and requiring 6 foot high fences and 42 inch boxed specimen trees to screen the expanded parking lot xp ial from the adioinin g resident properties. In addition, the Landscape Volume 46 - Page 170 *ITY OF NEWORT BEACH y4 CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES May 11, 1992 INDEX CRLL Plan was approved at meetings between City staff, the adjoining property owners, and representatives of the Newport Harbor Yacht Club. Timothy Collins of the Newport Harbor Yacht Club, addressed the Council and stated he was available for questions. Hearing no questions or anyone else wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Council Member Hedges expressed his All Ayes support of this request and moved to adopt Ordinance No. 92-14. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing Santiago regarding CONSTRUCTION OF CURBS, CUTTERS Dr/Irvine AND DRIVEWAY APPROACH ALONG SANTIAGO & Tustin DRIVE BETWEEN IRVINS AVENUE AND TUSTIN Crbs/Gtrs AVENUE (C-2641). Drvwy Apr sport from the Public Works Department. C322641 I was noted that the costs to the pr arty owners involved in this project we enumerated on page 2 of the staff repo , and that the 20% surcharges are to pro ids reimbursement to tha City for engine ing, management and contract adminis ation costs. Hearing n one wishing to address the Council, t e public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to confirm the All Ayes assessments, and allow the property owners three years to pay their assessments wit an interest rate of 8% per annum on the unpaid balance. 6. Mayor Sansone open d the public hearing Npt ShrsDr regarding CONSTRU ON OF CURB, GUTTER Prspct/PCH AND SIDEWALK AIA PROSPECT STREET Crb/Gtr/ BETWEEN NEWPORT SHO DRIVE AND PACIFIC Sdwlk COAST HIGHWAY. Report from the Public W ka Department. It was noted that the property is adjacent to the Pine Knot tel, and the estimated cost of the work is $1,650, which includes approximately: 1) $375 to replace an unused driveway opp ing curb with standard curb, and 2) 20i urcharge for reimbursement to the C ty for engineering, management and c tract administration costs. Hearing no one wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was clos d. Motion x Motion was made to direct staff A11 Ayes continue with the procedures of Cha to 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 to complete construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the westerly side of Prospect Street between Newport Shores Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. Volume 46 - Page 171 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH S �i. COUNCIL !EMBERS MINUTES ROLLCflLL Nay 11, 1992 INDEX E. PUBLIC COMMB=: Council Member Hedges stated that last week a newspaper article referenced apecific incidents he had had with the Nexport Beach Police Department. He stated he felt the "tone" and "inference" of the article reflected an apparent "less than total" commitment to the Police Department which he stated is not true. He said he wanted to clear the record, and emphasize that he is, and always has been, supportive of the Police Department since being elected to the City Council. He also feels the Police Department is probably the finest in Orange County ,and he supports them 110% for the good hard work they do, and he knows the City Council feels the same. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: _ Motion x The following actions were taken, except for All Ayes those items removed: 1. ORDINANCBS FOR INTRODUCTION: Pass to second reading on Jame 8, 1992 - (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-15, Ord 92-15 being, Adm Code AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (26) NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.02 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE UNIFORN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, 1991 EDITION. [Report from Building Department] i (b) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-16, being, Ord 92-16 Housing AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF Code t ' NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING (26) CHAPTER 15.03 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH NUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, 1991 EDITION. [Refer to report w/agenda item F-l(a)] (c) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 92-17, being, Ord 92-17 Bldg Code AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (26) NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE j NEWPORT BEACH NUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE DNIFORN BUILDING CODE, 1991 e EDITION. [Refer to report / w/agenda item F-l(a)] (d) Proposed ORDINANCE MD. 92-18, being, Ord 92-18 Mech Code AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (26) NEWPORT BEACH ANEI®ING CHAPTER 15.05 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH NUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, 1991 EDITION. [Refer to report v/agenda item F-1(4)1 Volume 46 - Page 172 51�ray EXHIBIT 1 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS' FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 142 HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN I. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each,of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmen- tal effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdic- tion of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Y 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project should be approved. A description of the project to be approved is provided below. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA, and the Initial Study determined that the project could have significant effects on the environment, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR indicates that there will be significant impacts as a direct result of the project in the area of land use and construction related air quality and noise, and that significant effects to air quality and noise will occur on a cumulative basis as a result of the project in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Findings and Facts set forth below explain the City's reasons for determining that the project should be approved as proposed. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. Meet the anticipated health care needs of Hoag's growing (i.e., population) as well as expanding (i.e., geographically) service area. 2. Provide the necessary flexibility in physical campus development to accommodate unanticipated medical service needs (i.e., new medical technologies that require unique or specialized building layout and structure). 3. Keep pace with new trends in the delivery of health care (i.e., increase in outpatient procedures/services, preventative health maintenance services, and educational and community services). A-1 4. Centralize and separate inpatient and outpatient services, as well as provide an overall organized approach to physical campus growth that is conducive to the types of medical services offered and user friendly for the patient in need of the medical service. 5. Establish Hoag Hospital as a regional hospital providing state-of-the- art medical technologies,which in turnwill eliminate the need for area residents to travel long distances for the most advanced medical services. 6. Enable Hoag Hospital to remain economically viable in a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive health care industry. 7. Respond to economic changes in health care delivery by providing quality medical services via the least expensive means possible. B. DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE PROJECT 1. Amendment No. 744 Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. 2. Development Agreement No. 5 Request to approve a Development Agreement for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan. 2. Traffic Study No. 81 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the development authorized in the Hoag Hospital Planned A. Community. 3. Variance No. 1180 Request to exceed the Base FAR of 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of 0.65 consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. III. FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT A. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT Earth Resources * The potential for liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, ground rupture, seismically induced slope failure and slope instability is considered low due to the fact that the site is underlain by dense to vary dense soils. Water * Requirements of the project will not substandally reduce public water supplies or expose the public to water related hazards. A-2 Natural Resources * There are no mineral resources on-site, i.e., sand, gravel, etc., therefore, project development will not impact mineral resources. Energy * The proposed project will not use substantial amounts of fuel or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. The methane gas currently being pumped from wells, west and southwest of the project site, has an energy producing potential. Utilization of this energy source by the Hospital complex could reduce the volume of gas or electricity currently being purchased for use by the Hospital. Hoag Hospital intends to contain this gas as a part of Lower Campus development; however, the exact method of containment and future use of the gas is not known at this time. Public Amenities * The project will result in the dedication and grading of a 0.8 acre linear and consolidated view park which results in a beneficial impact. * The project contribution to improvements on West Coast Highway results in a beneficial infrastructure impact. * Subsequent to the approval of this Agreement by the Coastal Commis- sion and the expiration of any statute of limitation for filing a legal challenge to this Agreement, the Master Plan, or the EIR, Hoag shall deposit Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) in an account, and at a financial institution, acceptable to City. The account shall be in the name of the City provided, however, Hoag shall have the right to access the funds in the event, but only to the extent that, Hoag constructs or installs the improvements described in (i) or (ii). Funds in the account shall be applied to the following projects (in order of priority upon notice to proceed served by City on Hoag): (i) The construction of a sidewalk and installation of landscaping in the CalTrans right-of-way along the west side of Newport Boulevard southerly of Hospital Road; (ii) The construction of facilities necessary to bring reclaimed water to West Newport and/or the Property; Any funds remaining in the account after completion of the projects described in (i) and (ii) shall be used by the City to fund, in whole or in part, a public improvement in the vicinity of the property. B. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Earth Resources Significant effect: The project will result in 170,000 cubic yards of cut and 31,000 cubic yards of fill on the lower campus. Cut and fill volumes for Upper Campus have not been determined. A-3 9' Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: This significant effect has been substantially lessened to an acceptable level with respect to grading cut and fill by virtue of the standards City policies and mitigation measures listed below: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the com- pletion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investi- gation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the project sponsor. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documentation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department confirming that all cut slopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during,all site grad- ing and construction activities and strictly monitor the slopes in accordance with the documentation. Significant Effect: One active fault (the Newport -Inglewood) and several poten- tially active faults are located within close proximity that could potentially impact the project site. Also, the verification of the presence of Balco fault and the un-named fault on-site has not been determined. The proposed project may experience impacts from ground shaking. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall provide to the City of Newport Beach a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation and report of the site prepared by a registered grading engineer and/or engineering geologist. This report shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent A-4 residents. This report shall determine if there are any faults on site which could render all or a portion of the property unsafe for construction. All recommendations contained in this investigation and report shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. This report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be de- signed and constructed to the seismic standards applica- ble to hospital related structures,and as specified in the then current City adopted version of the Uniform Build- ing Code. Significant Effect Expandable and corrosive soils may be encountered on the project site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each phase of development, the Building Department shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in "Report of Geotechnical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report,Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June, 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are fol- lowed. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivity evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. The site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection shall be worn by field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive, the source and extent of the corrosive soils shall be determined, and all buildings and infrastructure shall be designed to control the potential impact of corrosive soils over time. 7. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determi- nation, a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation shall also be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria. A-5 Corrosion resistant construction materials are commonly available and shall be used where the evalua- tion/assessment concludes that corrosive soils conditions could adversely impact normal construction materials or the materials used for the mitigation of subsurface gas conditions. For example, there are many elastomers and plastics,like PVC,which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 8. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due the severeness of their corrosivity (i.e., a PH less than 2.5), on-site remediation by neutralization shall be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency approvals and permits shall also be obtained. Hydrology/Water Quality Significant Effect: During construction on both Upper and Lower Campuses, grading and site preparation will expose soils and create the potential for short term erosion. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: This significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the additional mitigation measures listed below: 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a construction erosion control plan is submitted to and approved by the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engi- neer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non-rainy season. The project sponsor shall strictly adhere to the approved construction erosion control plan and compliance shall be monitored on, an on-going basis by the Newport Beach Building Department. Significant Effect: New construction on both the upper and lower campuses will impact water quality by replacing the presently undeveloped A-6 condition (primarily Lower Campus) with buildings and pavements resulting in increased urban pollutants in site run off. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. The project sponsor shall install landscaping in strict compliance with the ap- proved plan. 11. The project sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures and shall also routinely vacuum all future parking lots and-structures at current frequencies. Upon implementation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacuuming shall be done in accor- dance with the requirements specified in the plan. Significant Effect: Existing drainage facilities are expected to be adequate to handle Master Plan drainage; however, this should be verified when site plans are available. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the project sponsor-shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive AJ runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forward- ed to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Significant Effect Depending on the planned lower floor levels of pro- posed buildings, the project may require a construction dewatering program and a permanent subdrain system. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans, the project sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechni- cal/hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Build- ing Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program and subdrain system. 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the project sponsor shall submit an application to the Re- gional Water Quality Control Board for an NPDES permit if a construction dewatering or subdrain program is determined necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. Also, if dewatering is required by RWQCB, the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater sam- pling and analysis, and submit it to the California Re- gional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the NPDES permit. The project sponsor shall strictly comply with all conditions of any NPDES Permit. Significant Effect: The existing and future Master Plan Hospital facilities currently and in the future will handle infectious, hazardous and radio- active materials and wastes. Such wastes could contaminate water quality if not handled properly. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. A-8 Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 15. Project Sponsor shall strictly comply with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infec- tious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as strictly comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan development. Biological Resources Significant Effect: A total 1.52 acres of wetland communities will be impacted by the project. This acreage may increase, depending on the final outcome of current pending, changes to the federal wetland delineation methodology. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the project sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project shall comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetlands at that time, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission. If this review results in a finding by the Resources Agencies involved in the permit processes that mitigation is required for impacts to the 1.07 acres of wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communi- ties (Mitigation Measures 17 and 18). 17. The project sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be sub- mitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' ' Under the existing regulations, the Corps and USFWS would be consulted as part of the Section 4D4 permitting process. However,if proposed changes to the regulations result in removal of the project site from Corps jurisdiction, these agencies would not be required to review the wetland mitigation plan. A-9 • California Department of Fish and Game2 • City of Newport Beach 18. The resulting final mitigation plan shall be approved as part of the Coastal Development Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part of the Corps Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agree- ment, if applicable. A wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits for Master Plan development in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions: • The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least of equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities im- pacted by the project. • The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland communi- ties impacted by the project. • The wetlands created shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to mainte- nance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. • The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration creation of 0.2, acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skip- per; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. • The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guarantee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objectives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's re- sponsibilities for making any unforeseen repairs or modifications to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided by the project sponsor in the final mitigation plan: • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms; • A list of plant species to be used; 2 Regardless of other considerations,CDFG will review the wetland mitigation plan for the City of Newport Beach as part of the Coastal Development Permit Process;CDFG review would also be proviced as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement,if required. A-10 • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession,vegetative transplanting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long-term monitor- ing plans, including financing of the monitoring plans. Cultural Resources Significant Effect: No significant archaeological or historical resources are located on the project site; however, because subsurface resources can go undetected during surveys, archaeological and historical monitoring is necessary during grading. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading confer- ence, at which time monitoring procedures acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established, including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. Significant Effect: Based on the geological/paleontological literature and fossil locality maps, the project lies within a sensitive zone with the potential to yield significant fossils from Pleistocene and Miocene deposits. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation mcasure: 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to, and shall, monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference, at which A-11 time procedures acceptable to and approved by the City for monitoring shall be established,including the tempo- rary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evalua- tion, and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data shall go to an Orange County institution with an educational and/or research interest in the materials. Land Use Significant Effect:' Adoption of Master Plan will require a zoning code change for both upper and lower campuses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable require- ments of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not considered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adoption of the Master Plan, adoption of the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of a Development Agreement, approval of a zone change to Planned Community District, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus and a Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Lower Campus. 118. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the Office of the State Architect, Hoag Hospital shall submit to the State Architect a letter from the City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the construction plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. Transportation/Circulation Significant Effect: The proposed project will generate additional traffic. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. A-12 Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 25. Subsequent to completion of Phase I of the project, the project sponsor shall conduct a Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance (TPO) analysis for Phase II and III Master Plan development. The analysis shall identify potential inter- section impacts, the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for any intersection improvements identified as necessary by the study to insure a satisfactory level of service as defined by the TPO. This report shall be ap- proved by the City prior to commencement of Phase II or III construction. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I of the project, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall determine if the traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I development will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that existing plus Phase I development will generate more than 1338 PM peak hour trips, the project shall be reduced in size or the mix of land uses will be altered to reduce the PM peak hour trips to at or below 1338. 27. Subsequent to completion of Phase 1 Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This study shall analyze whether the traffic to be generated by the subsequent phases of development (Phases II and III) will exceed 1,856 PM peak hour trips when added to the trips generated by existing (including Phase I) Hoag Hospital development. This study shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for Phase II or III development. 28. The project sponsor shall continue to comply with all applicable regulations adopted by the Southern Califor- nia Air Quality Management District that pertain to trip reductions such as Regulation 15. 29. The project shall comply with the City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance ap- proved by the City Council pursuant to the County's Congestion Management Plan. Significant Effect: Although no specific impacts have been identified with respect to public transit, build out of the Master Plan will increase the demand for public transit. A-13 I Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following-mitigation measure: 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees, visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities shall be incor- porated into the Master Plan project: Bus turnouts shall be installed if, and as required,by the City Traffic Engineer at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be installed in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facili- ties. Significant Effect: Parking rates proposed for Master Plan development were determined to be adequate based upon existing similar uses. Finding: Y The ability to assure ongoing compliance with a finding of insignificance is assured through the monitoring of the following mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: The insignificant effect will be assured at a level of insignifi- cance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development phases subsequent to Phase I, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his/her review and approval a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. Significant Effect: Although no specific impacts have been identified with respect to the existing and future Hoag Hospital circulation system, and existing and future Upper and Lower campus access intersec- tions, mitigation will assure insignificant impacts. Finding: The ability to assure ongoing compliance with a finding of insignificance is assured through the monitoring of the following mitigation. A-14 IASY 0 • 1 Facts in Support of Finding: The insignificant effect will be assured at a level of insignifi- cance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 33. Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits for the phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the project sponsor will prepare an inter- nal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that identifies all feasible measures to eliminate internal traffic congestion and facilitates ingress and egress to the site. All feasible measures identified in this study shall be incorporated into the site plan. 34. Depending on actual site build out,intersection improve- ments may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper Campus access) Placentia Avenue Intersection and at the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 25. Noi e Significant Effect: Project generated traffic may contribute to on-site noise level excee- dances. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 39. If noise levels in on-site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEL, the project sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on-site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEL, mitigation such as window modifica- tions shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Significant Effect: Any increase in mechanical equipment use as a result of the proposed project would exacerbate existing noise level standard exceedances. A-15 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and or building permit the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on-site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Building Department that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Mas- ter Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 114. Roof top mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. 115. Noise from the emergency room expansion roof top mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. 116. The project sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of plant- ing thirty 24 inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa south- erly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. 117. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergen- cy medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not available at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible, arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. 119. Non-vehicular activities, such as the operation of the trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service/access road shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily. Visual/Aesthetics Significant Effect: The quality of the existing views will be altered somewhat in that existing views of the Lower Campus site will change from an undev- eloped mesa top and slope to a developed site. A-16 Finding: 11 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the si0fi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 43. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a landscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each build- ing/improvement within the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department and approv- al by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of plans from, the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed elec- trical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his or her opinion, this requirement has been met. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Depart- ment which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof top of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with building materials. 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the project sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park as identified in the project description (Figure 3.2.1.) The project sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 acre consolidated view park and a 0.52 acre linear view park. A-17 S Significant Effect: Based on development criteria outlined in the PCDP and District Regulations, Master Plan project development will result in an insignificant loss of ocean,Newport Bay and Catalina views. In certain locations, the project will enhance views that are currently obstructed by the existing slope. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any lower campus structure, the project sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure confor- mance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual im- pacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submit- ted to and approved by the City Planning Department. Public Health and Safety Significant Effect: The project site is a potential source of unknown hazardous waste (in relation to oil production on Lower Campus or hospital activity on both Upper and Lower Campuses). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction,the project sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and ac- cording to the requirements of the California Adminis- trative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. A-18 Significant Effect: According to data from the DOG, the Wilshire Oil Well on the Lower Campus requires re-abandonment. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well, Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is re-abandoned to the current stan- dards. Abandonment plans will be submitted to the State Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. Significant Effect: The lower Campus portion of the site has experienced methane and hydrogen sulfide gas seepage for at least the past 20 years. With project development, the potential exists for increased gas seepage. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site,prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus,Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program shall be conducted for the areas to be graded and/or excavated. Systematic sampling and analysis shall include methane and hydrogen sulfide gas. Samples shall be taken just below the surface, at depth intervals within the removal zone, and at a depth below the depth of actual distur- bance. (The individual(s) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant - and possibly A-19 lethal - doses of hydrogen sulfide, and shall be appro- priately protected as required.) 53. A site safety plan shall be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program shall receive training on the poten- tial hazards and on proper personal protective equip- ment. This training shall be at least at the level re- quired by CFR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples show unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells shall be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. Continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide shall be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities that may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. The project sponsor shall maintain a continuous monitor in the im mediate vicinity of the excavation, and a personal monitor, with an alarm, shall be worn by each worker with a potential for exposure. 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals shall be prepared and evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. The constituents studied shall include compounds that are directly related to petro- leum, such as benzene and toluene. 57. A study shall be conducted that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. This study shall characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. 58. A scrubber system shall be required to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system shall be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 60. An automatic re-light system shall be installed on the flare system to,reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system shall be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of accept- able levels shall be installed in the vicinity of the flare. 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents shall be conducted prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risks it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be developed A-20 to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constitu- ents from the site. The Hospital shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit, including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of Best Management Practices, imple- mentation of erosion control measures , the monitoring program requirements,and post construction monitoring of the system. 63. Soil samples shall be collected from appropriate loca-' tions at the site and analyzed for BTEX and priority pollutants; if the soils are found to contain unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents, appropriate mitigation will be required, including a complete characterization of both the vertical and horizontal extent of the contami- nation, and a remedial action plan shall be completed and approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project sponsor must demonstrate to the City of Newport Beach compliance with this measure prior to issuance of any permits for Phase I construction activities. 64. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project sponsor shall evaluate all existing vent systems located on the lower campus and submit this data to the City Building and Fire Departments, the State Depart- ment of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District for comment. Additionally, any proposed new passive vents shall be evaluated by these agencies prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. If the vents are emitting detectable levels of hydrogen sulfide and/or toxins, the emitted gasses must be treated prior to discharge in a manner acceptable to these agencies. 65. If required by the Southern.California Air Quality Air Management District, an air dispersion model shall be required in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. Compliance with any additional requirements of the AQMD shall be verified through a compliance review by the district with written verification received by the Newport Beach Building Department. 66. Before the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that continuous hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location have been provided in building designs. This monitoring equipment must be the best available monitoring system, and the plans must include a preventative maintenance program for the equipment and a calibration plan and schedule. 67. Prior to issuance of u grading permit, the Project Spon- sor shall ensure that the inferred fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and construction. If gas monitoring indicates a.potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. A-21 68. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensur- ing that all structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for protection from gas accumulation and seep- age, based on the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of New- port Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 70. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such a system typically consists of perfor- ated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the foundation. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geotechnical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be installed by the use of chlorinated poly- ethylene sheeting or similar approved system. All materials of construction including the PVC piping and the ground lining must be evaluated for compatibility with the existing environmental conditions of the soils and/or potential gases. 72. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 hour surveil- lance. 73. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other seldom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the buildings' central air conditioning system (or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). A-22 74. During construction,Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally,construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for worker/site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construc- tion in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to acceptable and safe levels. 75. The Project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare, the project sponsor shall ensure that meth- ane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that this transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 76. Prior to development on the Lower Campus, the project sponsor shall submit to the City of Newport within one year of May, 1992, plans to install a scrubber system to remove hydrogen sulfide from the influent gas to the flare. The design and construction of the system should be in accordance with the Best Available Control Tech- nologies, and must be in compliance with SCAQMD (District) Regulation XIII, emission offsets and New Source Review. 77. As required by the District, the project sponsor shall develop a sampling and analysis protocol for District ap- proval to evaluate the impact the existing and post- scrubber emissions will have on the ambient air quality and on possible receptor populations. The required evaluation shall include analysis for criteria and toxic pollutants, and an evaluation of the potential risks associated with the emission of these pollutants (Rule 1401). Included in the plans for the design of the scrub- ber system should be a make-up gas source. 78. The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, and if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for , continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arresters. The project sponsor shall evaluate enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 79. The project sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that demonstrate that the flare operation will be shut down within four years of August, 1992. The project sponsor must pre- pare and obtain approval from the SCAQMD to imple- ment a sampling and analysis protocol for evaluation of the existing emissions from the flare after scrubbing (Mitigation Measures 75 & 76), and the effect of flare shutdown on ambient air quality. The methane gas source should be used, if engineering design allows, as a supplemental source of fuel for the Hospital's boilers. If the gas is not usable, the flare shall be relocated. A-23 80. The plans for the design of the new system will include a calibration and maintenance plan for all equipment, and if required by the District as a permit condition, automatic shutdown devices, sensors and charts for continuous recording of monitoring, and flame arrestors. The project sponsor shall evaluate enclosing or placing new equipment underground. 81. Prior to installation of the scrubber system, the project sponsor shall develop a protocol for a study to evaluate the integrity of the control equipment and piping. The project sponsor must obtain agreement from the District on the protocol prior to initiating the study. 82. Before the issuance of building permits, the Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating compliance with all applicable District Rules, including Rule 402, Public Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. 83. Before the issuance of building permits, the ,project sponsor must submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the project sponsor has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach, Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency, as required by the Infections Waste Act and AB2185/2187. 122. The methane gas facility and all building on the lower campus shall be subject to all laws and regulations applicable, including, but not limited to, the Federal Regulation contained in 29 CFR 1910, the State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and the regulations of OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. Prior to the issuance of building permits on the lower campus, the project sponsor shall submit to the Newport Beach Fire Department a compliance review report of all the above referenced laws and regulations. Significant Effect: Development of the Hospital Master Plan would generate increased levels of hazardous, infectious and radiological wastes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: A-24 • i 'I 84. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with -its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan. 85. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infec- tious, radiological disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the addition- al waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. Significant Effect: Development•of the Hospital Master Plan may result in criteria emissions and air toxins. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following'mitigation measures: 86. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning Director that measures to ensure implementa- tion and continued compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 87. The project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department verifying that all roadways associat- ed with the development of the Master Plan will be paved early in the project, as a part of Phase I Master Plan development construction activities. 88. The project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase of development, verifying that energy efficiency will be achieved by incorporating appropriate technologies and systems into future struc- tures, which may include: - High efficiency cooling/absorption units - Thermal storage and ceramic cooling towers - Cogeneration capabilities - High efficiency water heaters Energy efficient glazing systems Appropriate off-hour heating/cooling/lighting controls A-25 Time clocks and photovoltaic cells for lighting controls Efficient insulation systems Light colored roof and building exteriors PL lighting and fluorescent lighting systems Motion detector lighting controls Natural interior lighting - skylights, clerestories Solar orientation, earth berming and landscaping 89. The project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Building Department that methods and materials which minimize VOC emissions have been employed where practical, available and where value engineering allows it to be feasible. Significant Effect: Existing overhead power lines could result in electromagnetic field impacts on the residential units located to the west of the upper campus. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 90. In conjunction with the Critical Care Surgery addition, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west of the Upper Campus underground if feasi- ble. Significant Effect: Dewatering may be required during project construction. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development, the project sponsor A-26 shall submit an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for an NPDES permit if a construction dewa- tering or subdrain program is determined necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. Also, if dewatering is required by RWQCB, the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater sampling and analysis, and submit it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the NPDES permit. The project sponsor shall strictly comply with all conditions of any NPDES Permit. Public Services and Utilities Significant Effect: The project is expected to cause a temporary decrease in police and fire response times due to construction. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 91. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Departments. Significant Effect: The project will require 8 to 24 inch water lines throughout the site. These lines will be connected to an existing 16 inch City water main. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 92. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devic- es for project lavatories and other water-using facilities, The project sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. A-27 Significant 'Effect: The project will require a network of 8 to 12 inch sewer lines on-site. Lines will be connected to an existing 30 inch,gravity sewer. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following,mitigation measure: 93. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The project sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifica- tions or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. Significant Effect: Development of the Master Plan will increase the need for fire protection. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 94. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City , Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 95. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. 96. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings is improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. A-28 97. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing,wall insulation,and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 98. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorpo- rate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water beater, cooking equipment, refrigerators,furnaces and boiler units. 99. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. Construction Activities Significant Effect: Implementation of the project will generate approximately 139,000 cubic yards of excess material,which will need to be exported from the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 100. The project sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared devel- opment site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmen- tally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. Significant Effect: Traffic delays may be experienced on Superior Avenue, Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project. The delays will result from construction related vehicles entering and exiting the project site, as well as motorists slowing to observe construction activities. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies identi- fied in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: A-29 101. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This-plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck move- ment in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 102. The project sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 103. The project sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disruptions to affected areas, businesses and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 104. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than 16 truck(i.e.,multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and concrete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to 25 truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour unless otherwise approved by the City traffic engineer. Haul operations will be monitored by the Public Works Department and additional restrictions may be applied if traffic congestion problems arise. C. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED Listed below are the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. These effects have been reduced to the extent feasible through the requirements and mitigation measures described below. The remaining unavoidable significant effects have been determined to be acceptable when balanced against the economic, social, or other factors set forth in the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B). Land Use Significant Effect: The project will result in a significant and unavoidable land use impact on residential units located directly adjacent to the western buildings of the upper campus. Although project setback limits are more stringent than City code, the placement of Hospital buildings closer to residential units located to the west of the upper campus Is a significant Impact when consid- ered in combination with other impacts such as shade and shadow and noise impacts at this location. A-30 •' 0 Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 23. The project sponsor shall construct, if feasible and 'by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of the Upper Campus. The proposed design of'the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 120. Within one year from the date of final approval of the Planned Community District Regulations and Develop- ment Plan by the California Coastal Commission, as an interim measure, the project sponsor shall implement an acoustical and/or landscape screen to provide a visual screen from and reduce noise to adjoining residences from the loading doc area. The design process for the Critical Care Surgery Addi- tion shall include an architectural and acoustical study to insure the inclusion of optimal acoustical screening of the loading dock area by that addition. Subsequent to the construction of the Critical Care Surgery Addition, an additional acoustical study shall be conducted to assess the sound attenuation achieved by that addition. If no significant sound attenuation is achieved, the hospital shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock area. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the New- port-Beach Municipal Code. 123. The design of the critical care/surgery addition shall incorporate screening devices for the windows which face the Villa Balboa area for the purpose of providing privacy for residents, so long as these screening devices can be designed to meet the Hospital Building Code requirements regarding the provision of natural light to the facility. Transportation and Circulation Significant.Effect: Increased development on the Upper Campus will increase use of the service roads on both the Upper and Lower Campuses, A-31 0 • and in turn contribute to noise and land use impacts to adjacent residential land uses. Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the pro- posed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program approved by the City Traffic Engineer that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non-working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emer- gency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non- working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital shall also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program shall be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If the results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City may require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. Air OuaIi1y Significant Effect: The project will result in motor vehicle and stationary source pollutant emissions. Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. A-32 Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 35. As each phase of the Master Plan is constructed, the project sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and programs and the number of the Transportation Coor- dinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital, as required by Regulation XV. 36. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Depart- ment that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. An air quality analysis shall be conducted prior to each phase of development for the proposed mechanical equipment contained within that phase that identifies additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment to be installed in that phase. If the new emissions, when added to existing project emissions could result in impacts not previously considered or significantly change the land use impact, appropriate CEQA documentation shall be prepared prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of development. Each subsequent air quality analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the SCAQMD. 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Depart- ment that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 38. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorpo- rate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91-16, as appropriate, to the Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: 1) A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking places shall be located near the employee en- trance or at other preferential locations. 2) A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employers shall be provided. Additional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. A-33 3) A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. 4) Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. 5) A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. 6) The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. 7) Bus stop improvements shall be required'for devel- opments located along arterials where public transit exists or is anticipated to exist within five years. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan shall be determined by the City during review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. 121. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual phase of development (i.e., I, II or III) the project sponsor shall conduct a CO hot spot analysis for the subject phase of development. This analysis shall utilize the EMFAC7EP emission factor program for the build out year of the subject phase of development, and the CALINE4 CO hot spot model or the model recommend- ed for such analysis at that time. The results of this analysis shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review. City staff will verify consistency with the results of the project build out CO analysis. Although the incremental increase in adverse air quality effects as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a cumulative significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid- ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional solutions to cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR include the surrounding local cities, the County of Orange, the Southern California Association of Governments,the California Air Resources Board and the Southern California Air Quality Management District. Noise Significant Effect: Build out of the Master Plan represents an insignificant (2.2 dBA) contribution to noise levels in the surrounding project vicinity. A-34 Findings: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies. Facts in Support of Finding: Although the incremental increase in adverse noise effects as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a cumulative significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid- ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional solutions to cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR include the surrounding local cities, the County of Orange and the State Department of Transportation. Significant Effect: Population growth in the Hoag Hospital service area may increase the frequency at which emergency vehicles deliver patients to the Hoag Hospital Emergency Room. Findings: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measure: 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that, upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adja- cent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver patients to Hoag Hospital. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: Although the incremental air pollutant emission increase as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a cumulative significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. This unavoidable significant effect is consid- ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. A-35 Visual Aesthetics Significant Effect: Master Plan development will result in increased shade and shadow impacts to residential land uses located to the west of the upper campus. Finding: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The impact is insignificant, however, the impact identified in the EIR contributes to a significant unavoidable land use impact. Although the incremental shade and shadow increase as a direct result of the project is considered minor, it is viewed as a cumulative significant impact within the context of the overall hospital project. This unavoidable significant effect is consid- ered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Construction Activities Significant Effect: Air pollutants will be emitted by construction vehicles, and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not solely the City of , Newport Beach. Such changes have been adopted by other agencies or can and should be adopted by such agencies, Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 105. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. 106. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, A-36 erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 107. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation,grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour(MPH), and soil binders on SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should'be spread on construction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hours, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts,and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 108. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members. This plan shall identify measures, such as ride-sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan-shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction, the project sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval. This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Other public agencies with jurisdiction to effect regional solutions to impacts identified in the Final EIR include the surrounding local cities, the County of Orange, the Southern California Association of Governments, the California Air , Resources Board and the Southern California Air Quality Management District. Significant Effect: Construction noise will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project. Construction noise can reach high levels and represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. However, because construction of the project will occur over a 20 year period, this is considered to be a significant unavoidable adverse project impact. A-37 Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the signifi- cant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies identified in the Final EIR and the following mitigation measures: 109. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase of construction,the project sponsor shall submit an analysis to the City Building Department that documents the criteria emissions factors for all stationary equipment to be used during that phase of construction. The analysis shall utilize emission factors contained in the applicable SCAQMD Handbook. The analysis shall also be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department for review and approval. 112. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of con- struction and excavation work to•7:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall,while engaged in construction, remodel- ing, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. This unavoidable significant effect is considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IV. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Anal, Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." Six alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in Section 6 of the Final EIR. These alternatives were developed with the intent of finding ways to avoid or reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project while attaining the basic objectives of the project, even if those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. The City Council has determined that these alternatives are infeasible, in that they would not satisfy the basic project objectives or they would not substantially reduce the environmental effects as compared to the proposed project, with exception of the no development alternative. A summary of the alternatives considered, along with an explanation of why each alternative was rejected is presented below. The Project Objectives are presented in Section II.A., above. A-38 Throughout the public hearings, several alternative plans where presented to both the Planning Commission and the City Council. While certain specifics of the alternative plans were different, each was based on the concept of a density shift of development from the lower to the upper campus. From an environmental basis, all these alternative presented substantially the same environmental consequences as the Villa Balboa Alternative described in the EIR. The variety of density shift alternative plans do vary in the technical feasibility of the proposals. 1 No Project/Development According to Existing Entitlements The No Project alternative would allow for construction of additional hospital facilities in accordance with the 1979 Master Plan, The 1979 Master Plan did not address development on the lower campus because Hoag Hospital did not own that site at that time. As a result, development on the lower campus would be allowed subject to the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan and the approval of a Use Permit in each case. The No Project alternative would result in impacts similar to or greater than the proposed project, in that general plan level of entitlement would progress on a case by case basis. Impacts related to the cumulative development could be greater since comprehensive site and environmental analysis would not occur. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior. 2. No Development Alternative This alternative would preserve the remaining undeveloped land on the lower campus as open space, and no new construction would occur on the upper campus. This alternative would avoid all of the impacts associated with all of the building alternatives. The linear and consolidated view park would also not be constructed. While considered to be environmentally superior, this alternative is rejected due to the fact that none of the project objectives would be accomplished without the further expansion of Hoag Hospital. 3, Decreased Density Alternative This alternative provides for development according to the Master Plan on the Upper Campus, and a decreased allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 on the lower campus. Under this alternative, development of the entire lower campus would occur. Therefore, the resulting impacts to landform. public health, cultural resources and hydrology would occur. This alternative could decrease the visual impacts of the project from the area surrounding the existing cancer center. Assuming the Hospital project represents a plan to meet demand for health care service in the area, a decrease in the allowable development may result in certain facilities in satellite locations. This could• result in increases in traffic, air, quality and noise impacts due to increases in vehicular trips and miles travelled. The impacts of this alternative are considered to be equivalent to the proposed project, while not fully meeting the objectives of Hoag Hospital. 4. Design Alternatives The design alternatives both have the goal of avoiding the on site wetland area. One design would allow the planned amount of development on the upper and lower campuses,but would intensify structures on the lower campus into mid and/or high rise structures. The other design would shift a portion of the lower campus development to the upper campus. A-39 The intensification would create unavoidable adverse impacts to public views. The impacts would be engendered to preserve on site a wetland which can be mitigated to a level of insignificant impact through replacement in a more biologically productive area. It is, therefore, not environmentally superior. The density shift alternative is similar in nature to the Villa Balboa Alterna- tives and the various density shift alternatives discussed through the course of the public hearings. Mitigable impacts will be reduced with the lowered intensity on the lower campus; unmitigable impacts associated with the development on the upper campus will be increased as a result of intensified upper campus development. It is, therefore, not environmentally superior. 5. Villa Balboa Alternatives The Villa Balboa Alternatives, the Friends of Cat-tail Cove Alternative and the density shift alternative described above are all similar from an environ- mental standpoint. Fundamental to the finding that these alternatives are not environmentally superior is the fact that significant and unavoidable land use impacts are identified for the upper campus development. These impacts are existing and future noise, light and glare, shade and shadow, and visu- al/aesthetics problems along the service access road. Intensification of the upper campus will increase these impacts. Since impacts associated with development of the lower campus can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, these various density shift alternative cannot be considered to be environmentally superior. 6. Alternative Site Locations The potential for alternative project locations was examined in order to reduce or alleviate the potential environmental effects on environmental re- sources. Two sites were evaluated: San Diego Creek South and Mesa Verde' Loop. This alternative site analysis was conducted to explore the way to alleviate the projects significant and unavoidable environmental effects. The Mesa Verde loop site is rejected as a project alternative site since it is not large enough to accommodate sufficient development to reduce the project impacts below a level of significance. The San Diego Creek site is of sufficient size to eliminate the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. However, the project specific impacts associated with development on this off-site location and the fact that this site is currently being considered for a 300 unit residential development removes this site from further consideration. In the consideration of the project and the alternatives to the project, the City Council has incorporated many changes to the development standards in order to reduce the significant effects of the proposed project. These changes include increased setbacks on West Coast Highway,Newport Boulevard and the westerly side of the upper campus; and lowered height limits on the lower campus. Conclusion On the basis of the information presented above, the City Council has determined that the project as modified will accomplish the project objectives while substantially reducing the environmental impacts of the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 2)presents the reasons why the City Council has determined that the proposed project should be approved, even though it will contribute to significant project related and cumulative effects that cannot be fully mitigated. PLT%.\cc\amd\CIR142.fnd A-40 Adjourned City Council Meeting March 30, 1992 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Ordinance No 92-3 (Planning Commission Amendment No.744) Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. The proposal would establish regulations and development standards for the long term build-out of acute and non-acute health care facilities. The proposal also includes an amendment to Districting Maps No. 22 and 22-A so as to redistrict the hospital property from the A-P-H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P-C (Planned Community District); an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the Lower Campus wholly within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Ordinance No. 92-4 (Development Agreement No. 5) Request to approve Development Agreement No. 5 for the Hoag Hospital Master Plan between the City of Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. AND C. Traffic Study No. 81 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the Hoag Memorial Hospital master plan of development. AND t J TO: City Council - 2. D. Variance No. 1180 Request to exceed the Base FAR of 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of 0.65 consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: Lower Campus: -A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport boulevard and Superior Avenue. Upper Campus:Parcel No. 1 of Record of Survey 15-30, located at 301 Newport Boulevard, on the southwesterly comer of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: A-P-H and U (Unclassified) APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant ,Suggested Action Continue to receive public testimony, and continue to the meeting of April 13, 1992. Discussion This report contains a discussion of issues raised at the meeting of March 23, 1992 as a result of testimony and the questions of the City Council. Analysis of General Plan Policies. A substantial amount of public testimony was received by the City Council in regards to various General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies which raised issues regarding the compliance of the project with those policies. This discussion is intended to place these comments into the overall policy compliance framework of the City's planning documents. It is relatively easy to excerpt from the comprehensive planning documents statements which can be used to demonstrate non-compliance issues. However, the policies contained in the General Plan and LCP cannot be viewed as stand-alone statements, but must be placed in the context of the overall goals of the city which ultimately require the City Council to balance competing objectives. Policy statements in the various elements of the General Plan and LCP are always followed with specific programs and plans, which describe how these broad policies are implemented through specific proposals. The specific references outlined in public testimony are discussed below. Jr 0 • TO: City Council - 3. Policies related to bluffs and views: Several references in the General Plan Land Use Element, Recreation and Open Space Element and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan contain bluff and public view policies, as follows: Land Use Element Policy D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practica4 the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE) Objective 3. Maintenance and enhancement of the scenic character of the City of Newport Beach. ROSE Policy 3.1: Existing view opportunities shall be preserved and enhanced This shall include public visual access to the water front. New development (including landscaping), public or private, shall be sited and designed to protect public views of ocean and other coastal scenic areas. ROSE Policy 3.3. The scenic resource provided by coastal bluffs shall be protected and preserved 'Bluffs"are defined as any landfonn having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater consistent with City ordinances. ROSE Program 3.3.2.b: Public Views: The location of the project shall take into account public view potential ROSE Program 3.3.2.c: 1. Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through design of the local street system and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. 2. Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements. Local Coastal Program: Sections 30251 and 3025�(5) require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas and the preservation of special communities. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program also contain the provisions of Recreation and Open Space Program 3.3.2.c. Before going into specifics, it is important to note that these polices are geared to provide the basis for many open space requirements City-wide. Therefore, these policies provide the basis to require not only the dedication called out for the lower campus of Hoag Hospital, but also such requirements as the 4 acre bluff top view park on the Newporter North site and the 10 acre view park called out on the upper Castaways site. The policies and programs of the various planning documents are, therefore, the basis for the specifics of the plans themselves. In each element(most precisely in the Recreation.and i TO: City Council - 4. Open Space Element) the plan defines the implementing program established by the City Council to implement the various policies and programs. In the case of the site in question, the specific implementation is as follows: CalTrans East View Park - approximately .8 acres A small linear view park will be incorporated into proposed development on the bluffs. In terms of the location of the park in relation to the top of slope, the proposed project will further excavate the slope so that the top of slope will be virtually contiguous with the required park and the existing bicycle/pedestrian accessway. In terms of the grading and alteration of the slope, the Ordinance referred to in ROSE Policy 3.3 (Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) states: Grading: Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges (emphasis added) shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas,except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs,or for the installation of erosion preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Therefore, further grading of the existing slope face is not prohibited due to the fact that the slope is not the original natural bluff face. Additionally, the provisions of ROSE Policy 3.3 apply only when a subdivision is being requested. Other Land Use Policies. Reference was made to the following land use policy: The City shall develop and maintain adequate standards for landscaping sign control; site and building design, parking and undetgrounding of utilities and other development standards to insure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods is maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within, industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. The primary concern related to this policy was compatibility of the scale of the lower campus development with the surrounding development. In reviewing this project, staff has noted that the two to four story development which the development standards would permit will result in structures of a similar scale as the Villa Balboa development, which is three stories above partially subterranean parking. The P-C Development Regulations contain all the necessary provisions such as landscaping, sign control, building design and parking requirements noted in the policy to insure consistent development. Findings to Exceed the Basic Height Limit. In order to approve the height limits requested without requiring further review and approval of a Use Permit for specific projects, certain findings must be made. These provisions and project compliance are discussed below: v Y � • TO: City Council - 5. 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structures on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The fundamental design of the height limits proposed is to provide for the preservation and enhancement of public views from the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail on the southerly property line of Villa Balboa. The basic height limit of the lower campus would allow for the construction of 32 foot high buildings on the upper pad level of the lower campus site. The height zone system provides for location sensitive height limits. Other provisions of the P-C Text in regards to landscaping and the enhanced setback and articulation requirements described above, will assure the quality treatment of setback and open space areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the buildings and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The increased building height will allow for taller structures which are subject to enhanced setback and facade articulation and will result in a more desirable architectural treatment, in that stronger and more varied horizontal and vertical articulation is required. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relation- ships being created between the structures and existing developments or open spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structures including both horizontal requirements. The provisions of the P-C Text work in concert to create a development envelope which insures that no undesirable or abrupt scale relationships will result from implementation of the project. These include height limits designed to preserve and enhance public views, height limits which result in structures which are similar in terms of overall height and number of floors to the Villa Balboa project which is immediately adjacent to the project site, enhanced setback and vertical and horizontal articulation requirements,and landscaping requirements. The total bulk of the building is specifically limited by the building bulk limits defined in the Newport Beach General Plan. 4. The structures shall have no more floor area than could have been otherwise achieved. The development standards will assure compliance with the General Plan intensity limits. Explanation of Height Limits. There appears to be some confusion about the height limits proposed for the lower campus. If approved, the proposal will result in the establishment of a dual height limit similar to those established for the Newport Center Sight Plane and the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. The height limit to be established is 50 above grade. In addition, absolute limits in relation to Mean Sea Level (MSL) are established. Whichever height is more restrictive applies. This system assures the view preservation relationship between the building heights and the trail/view park elevations. Y Y . TO: City Council - 6. Cancer Center Expansion Height Limits. Staff was asked to explain its proposal regarding the heights around the existing cancer center. The following is an excerpt from the December 5, 1991 Staff Report to the Planning Commission. "A computer view analysis was prepared as part of the environmental review process to assess the impact to views. This study reveals that the height limits proposed generally result in preservation or enhancement of views. The primary exception to this is Zones D and G, which is in the area to the west and south of the existing cancer center. In this location, the bicycle trail drops significantly in elevation. Extension of the cancer center building at its existing height would result in elimination of public views in this area. Based on a field survey of this area, it is the opinion of staff that a two story building in this area would virtually eliminate these impacts. It is, therefore, suggested by staff that a height limit be defined for these areas based upon an extension of the cancer center at two stories only. Using the cancer center construction documents, the height in these areas would be limited to 25 (45) feet." In making this suggestion, staff was aware of the programmatic design of the cancer center. The first two floors are the treatment areas. The third floor is occupied by oncologists' offices. While staff recognizes the convenience to both physicians and patients which results from having doctors' offices close to the treatment areas, its opinion was that similarly convenient offices could be constructed elsewhere on the lower campus, while the lowering of the building heights in the area would greatly relieve view impacts for this portion of the bicycle trail. Validity of Computer Visual Analysis. Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy of the computer-generated visual analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. A photo from behind the Cancer Center was compared to one of the visual impact exhibits contained in the DEIR. Staff disputes the contention. It is first important to note that the approval of the cancer center acknowledged that views from the bicycle/pedestrian trail would be blocked. In allowing this to occur,the City stated the cancer center occupied only a small portion of the lower campus site, and that the views would be addressed and preserved consistent with General Plan requirements through the master plan process. The height of the cancer center is 57.5 feet MSL. The pedestrian trail behind the cancer center is 52.8 MSL,or almost 5 feet lower than the cancer center. The cancer center is over 10 feet higher than the "dip" in the trail westerly of the cancer center. Clearly, there was no expectation of view preservation from behind the cancer center building from the trail. The view analysis for this project was conducted from a point 4 feet above the trail elevation as the analysis points. While this point is relatively arbitrary, it has been established as a view measurement point in that the approval of GPA 82-1 for the CalTrans West property used this point above Newport Crest balcony levels for view preservation. In relationship to the proposed elevation height limits, the comparison of these points is as follows: Y 0 • TO: City Council - 7. In height zone C,the maximum building height is 60 feet MSL while the view analysis points (4 feet above trail elevation) range from 62.41 to 69.81 feet MSL, or 2.41 to 9.81 feet higher than the proposed height limits. In height zone B, the maximum building height is 64 feet MSL while the view analysis points (4 feet above trail elevation) range from 64.99 to 69.39 feet MSL, or 0.99 to 5.39 feet higher than the proposed height limits. In height zone A, the maximum building height is 68 feet MSL while the view analysis points (4 feet above trail elevation) range from 70.41 to 75.42 feet MSL, or 2.41 to 7.42 feet higher than the proposed height limits. In this zone, however, the consolidated portion of the view park is anticipated to maintain the existing elevation of from 70 to 73.5 feet MSL. In addition, the allowable height limits are reduced by 3 feet in Zone A and 4 feet in Zones B & C at the West Coast Highway property line, which creates a height limit which is "tilted" towards the ocean and bay views. Lower and Continuous Building to Reduce Lower Campus View Impacts. It was suggested that a single continuous building which was lower in height could further reduce view impacts. This concept could improve public views from the bicycle/pedestrian trail. It would not, however, be consistent with certain concerns of the Planning Commission and objectives of Hoag Hospital. The Commission did not wish to allow the hospital to construct long, continuous structures for aesthetic reasons, and included the following requirement : "In order to avoid any future structures in this area (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway) from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 250 linear feet in width. Additionally, 20% of the linear frontage within 150 feet of West Coast Highway shall be open and unoccupied by buildings." This concept would also be inconsistent with the hospital objective related to flexibility, since it would require the construction to occur in a single increment. This would not allow the hospital to construct smaller special use buildings in response to changing needs and new health care technologies. Rather, the uses would have to be adapted to the building configuration constructed. Height and Location of Critical Care/Surgery Addition. The critical care/surgery addition is located in the mid-rise upper campus height zone, which allows structures to a maximum of 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The actual height of the facility is 125 feet above MSL and 61.5 feet above existing grade. In considering the location of the critical care surgery addition, the Planning Commission became convinced that expansion in any other direction but west of the existing tower was, if not totally infeasible, at least extremely costly and disruptive to the on-going operation of the hospital. The hospital has provided an explanation of the impacts associated with TO: City Council - 8. expansion of the tower to the north, east and south (Attachment 1). In summary, the existing facilities and uses which would have to be relocated on either a permanent or temporary basis are: NORTH ALTERNATE: a. Main Central Lobby b. Radiology Department C. Dietary Services, Cafeteria d. Ancillary Support Services EAST ALTERNATE: a. Cardiology/Cath Labs b. Maternity Services C. Surgery Recovery i d. Heart Surgery Suites e. Central Pharmacy f. Material Management/Storage g. Tower Corridors/Circulation/Fire Exiting SOUTH ALTERNATE: a. Shipping and Receiving b. Materials Distribution C. Waste Management/Refuse/Recycling d. Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit e. All Loading Dock Functions f. Cancer Tunnel/Elevation Link g. O.R. Storage h. Outpatient Treatment Center i. G.I. Lab Processing of the Density Shift Alternative. It was mentioned that the density shift alternative proposed by the Homeowners of Villa Balboa would require a General Plan Amendment. This is not totally correct in that the General Plan allows for transfers of development rights subject to the provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and a finding that the building scale and intensity between the sites involved in the transfer result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area. An amendment to the Municipal Code would be required because the existing provisions applicable to transfer of development rights only allow an increase on the receptor site up to a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0. Since the existing allowable FAR of the Hoag Hospital upper campus is 1.0 FAR, no additional development could be allocated to the site without an amendment to either the General Plan or the Newport Beach Municipal Code, whichever was deemed more appropriate by the City. It is also important to note that the City is not in a position to actually approve the density shift concept in the course of this action. If the Council desires to pursue this alternative as the preferred development concept for the Hoag Hospital project,staff should be directed TO: City Council - 9. to work with the hospital in developing the necessary revisions to the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan,revisions to the Environmental Impact Report, revisions to the traffic study, and the potential use permit application necessary to approve a transfer of development rights. The project would then proceed back through public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. One variation of the density shift alternative was included as a project alternative in the Environmental Impact Report. Based upon the fact that further intensification of the upper campus will increase the use of the existing warehouse facility and, thereby, the service access road, it was determined that this alternative was not environmentally superior to the proposed project. This conclusion was based, upon the facts that all project related environmental effects of the lower campus development are mitigated to a level of insignificance, or are significant only on a cumulative basis. The EIR identified a remaining project-related significant environmental impact associated with the upper campus development due to the increased land use impacts related to the incompatibilities between residential and hospital uses experienced on the service access road. Whether considering the density shift alternative, or in the related concerns associated with the activities on the service road, or the location of the critical care surgery addition, an interest in actual relocation of the service road and related warehouse facility is engendered. There are two factors which dictate the location of the primary and service access roads on the upper campus. One factor is the location, configuration and access limitations of the upper campus. -The site is an elongated triangle with street frontage on two roads, Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. Due to the large grade differential between the hospital site and Newport Boulevard, no access is available from this direction. On Hospital Road, safe access can only be granted from the top of the slope of Hospital Road to the westerly property line adjacent to Versailles-on-the-Bluff. Slope and separation considerations dictate the location of the two access points to be at the Placentia Avenue signal and at the westerly property line on Hospital Road. The other factor is the need to separate the heavy vehicle delivery traffic from the general hospital traffic. This separation is necessary due to safety considerations. Even when considering the additional access from Coast Highway through the lower campus, the need to separate the service and general hospital traffic requires the maintenance of the service road and loading facility in the existing location. The density shift alternative, therefore, cannot be considered environmentally superior. An additional consideration related to the density shift alternative is inconsistency with certain project objectives of Hoag Hospital. These objectives strive toward a separation of acute and non-acute health care facilities and the flexibility to construct smaller,use specific buildings on an as-needed basis on the lower campus. The density shift would consolidate more hospital uses, both acute and non-acute, on the upper campus, and would require the construction of larger building increments. J • TO: City Council - 10. Density Shift FAR's. The following chart illustrates the upper and lower campus Floor Area Ratios which would result from the transfer of 50% of the proposed lower campus development to the upper campus: Upper Campus: Site Size: 17.57 acres Square footage: 1,054,293 sq.ft. FAR: 1.38 Lower Campus: Site Size: 20.41 acres Square footage: 288,944 sq.ft. FAR: 0.31 Sites for Wetlands Mitigation. Staff has prepared.a list of potential wetland mitigation sites. It is the opinion of staff that a specific site should not be identified in the potential project approval. The mitigation program approval is the responsibility of the California Coastal Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in association with the related State and Federal Resources Agencies having the expertise in determining the best and most appropriate location for wetlands mitigation. Additionally, it is important to note that the wetland on the lower campus is a fresh water marsh, and that a fresh water mitigation program will be required. Generally, it is biologically preferable to link a small wetland mitigation to a large, functioning wetland system, rather than conducting the mitigation in an isolated, degraded area. The resource agencies recognize this, and tend to vary their mitigation requirements according to the suitability of the mitigation site chosen. In considering this issue, the Planning Commission required 1.5 to i mitigation and indicated the preference for mitigation in Newport Beach in Measure No. 105, as follows: 105. Wetlands mitigation, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the California Coastal Commission, shall be at a ratio of 1.5:1 for those areas determined by the permitting agencies as subject to mitigation requirements. It is the desire of the City of Newport Beach that mitigation occur within the corporate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach or its westerly Sphere-of-Influence. Mitigation shall occur outside this area only upon submittal of evidence to the Planning Department verifying the lack of appropriate mitigation sites in the City. Potential mitigation sites are: 1. Santa Ana River Wetlands - Historically, freshwater willow woodlands, cat-tail marshes and brackish pickleweed marshes associated with the lower Santa Ana River were among the most extensive and productive wetlands in Orange County. Degraded remnant Santa Ana River wetlands extend to within one mile of the Hoag Hospital project site. As noted in the DEIR, these wetlands possess some marginal functional ties to the Hoag project site via the open spaces of the West Newport Oil TO: City Council - 11. property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has already undertaken a major mitigation project in the area, including a brackish pickleweed marsh adjacent to the river and a fresh water site adjacent to Victoria Pond. The County of Orange Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks has identified a site within the Fairview and Talbert Regional Park for fresh water wetlands creation for which participation may be available. Property owners in the area are the County of Orange, the City of Costa Mesa, the West Newport Oil Company and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2. Upper Newport Bay - The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is located approximately two to three miles northeast of the Hoag project site. Mitigation that may be feasible in this area is conversion of a pampas grass dominated area located at 22nd Street on the west side of the Bay, and expansion of the wetland in the Mouth of Big Canyon on the east side of the Bay. Property owners in the area are the State of California, the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. 3. Other Sites - Fresh water wetlands are relatively easy to create. Throughout the County, many fresh water wetlands have been created by man in association with drainage improvements and desiltation facilities. Therefore, many dry land sites in the City could have potential for wetlands creation. Some of these sites are: a. San Diego Creek North b. San Diego Creek South C. Newport Village d. Caltrans West Hoag Hospital prepared a preliminary site survey report (Attachment 2) that studied the following sites: a. Mouth of Big Canyon b. Victoria Pond C. Environmental Nature Center d. Jamboree/MacArthur e. San Joaquin Duck Ponds f. West Newport Oil Fields g. Avon Street Drainage Ditch Noise Standards. It has been requested that project specific noise standards similar to the County's Comprehensive Noise Ordinance be included in the P-C District Regulations for the project. It is the opinion of staff that this should not be done at this time due to a number of factors. The City is currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive revision to the Noise Element. A screencheck document is currently being reviewed by staff, and consideration of the document is anticipated to occur in the next few months. This document will set forth the City's Goals, Objectives, and Policies related to the control of noise City-wide. This document will then provide the basis for the preparation of a Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. It is important to note that this ordinance will regulate TO: City Council - 12. noise City-wide, and that the hospital will be subject to these regulations even if the Development Agreement is approved. If staff were directed to draft noise regulations for inclusion in the P-C Text, the form of the sound limitations and measurement criteria will be substantially similar to those proposed to the City Council for the regulation of mechanical equipment in residential districts (which were based upon the standards of the County Noise Ordinance). Upon receiving the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, the City Council concluded that the regulations were difficult to understand and would not be readily enforceable. The proposal was, therefore, rejected, and staff was directed to include the issue in the Noise Ele- ment/Noise Ordinance program. Exterior Property Lines. The Newport Boulevard property line can be identified as the existing chain link fence and brow ditch on the upper campus. The West Coast Highway and Hospital Road property lines are the back of the existing sidewalks. Earthquake Fault Proximity. Hoag Hospital, as is the case for the entire City of Newport Beach, is located in close proximity to the Newport/Inglewood Fault Zone. No portion of the City is, however, located in the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone established for this or any other earthquake fault, nor are there any active faults known to occur on the hospital site. Hoag Hospital has provided a map and list of some hospitals in Southern California which are near to known faults. (Attachment 3). California is located in a seismically active area and regularly experiences earthquakes. Virtually no area is completely safe from structural damage due to these events. As a result, stringent building design standards for hospital facilities have been enacted. All critical facilities constructed by Hoag Hospital must meet these standards. Compliance with these standards are verified by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and the Office of the State Architect, and are inspected for compliance by the State as well. Staff met with Mr. Charles V. DeCapite, Area Construction Advisor of OSHPD,who described the detailed review for compliance with all applicable standards and current technologies in the area of seismic building design and construction. Mr. DeCapite also indicated that buildings constructed pursuant to OSHPD standards have withstood such seismic episodes as the Whittier Narrows and Loma Prieta earthquakes. Corrosive Soils and Gas Hazard Mitigation Facilities. Concerns were raised regarding the potential for deterioration of infrastructure (Polyethylene Sheeting/Membrane and PVC Piping) installed to provide subsurface gas hazard mitigation if installed in association with corrosive soils encountered on the Hoag Hospital site. It should be noted that corrosive soils do not mean acidic, and that soils which are identified as "corrosive" can have an adverse effect on concrete and buried pipes made of ferrous metals. Typically, concrete additives are prescribed and piping constructed of plastic are used in place of ferrous metal pipes. "Plastic" membrane materials are commonly available which are relatively inert and have project life spans exceeding 300 years, based on EPA estimates. As of this writing, staff has been unable to make contact with experts in the field to further discuss the TO: City Council - 13. longevity of these types of installations. Any additional information developed will be reported verbally at the City Council meeting. The project is subject to strict mitigation measures in regards to complete analysis of the soil conditions, including any other trace elements which could interact with the foundation materials. The materials incorporated into the foundation design will be selected based upon these conditions. Export of Corrosive Soils. Concerns were raised regarding large truck traffic and additional construction relative to an assumed need to export and replace corrosive soils on the lower campus site. There is no problem in this regard due to the fact that the only potential export of soil would be related to an unbalanced grading program. If required, corrosive soils will be treated (neutralized) on site. Landslide Hazards. The existing slope on the lower campus is an engineered 2:1 slope created when the site was excavated to provide freeway fill. While erosion and revegetation of the slope has occurred, no landslides have been experienced since grading. Further excavation of the slope is proposed, but the entire length of the new cut will ultimately be occupied by either buildings or retaining walls. This will insure that there will be no hazards due to landslide. Hazard to Villa Balboa from Grading Vibration. Concern was expressed regarding potential hazards to Villa Balboa structures which could result from vibration generated by the lower campus grading program. It was indicated that vibration associated with the construction of the cancer center resulted in decorative items falling from walls and shelves in the building immediately above the cancer center site. It was also indicated that the building located at 230 Lille Lane (although staff believes the commentator was actually referring to 270 Cagney Lane) was currently experiencing some foundation and wall cracking, although it did not appear to be related to lower campus development. This issue was reviewed with the City's Grading Engineer, and the following statements can be made. The Building Department has not been contacted regarding any potential problems, and no permits have been requested to correct the described situation. Therefore, no comments can be made as to what problems this structure may have. In terms of the grading associated with development of the lower campus, the proposal will involve the preparation of detailed plans and soils reports which include conditions to assure that no adverse effects are engendered by the grading. It was noted that the type of grading to be conducted on the lower campus could result in the type of vibration that could result in pictures falling from wails, etc., but it would not be anticipated that subsurface effects would occur. It should be noted that structures like the Villa Balboa are designed to be flexible, and that vibration of the,building does not mean that the ground is vibrating in a similar manner. Foundation Design and Groundwater. Concern was expressed regarding the potential for the build-up of hydrostatic pressure resulting in foundation failure of Villa Balboa structures } r 0 TO: City Council - 14. after the construction of the hospital structure on the lower campus. This concern is engendered by the fact that a substantial amount of groundwater flows through the area. This issue was reviewed with the City's Grading Engineer, and the following statements can be made. As is the case for all grading, soils and foundation related concerns, detailed engineering and soil hydrology reports will be required prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. These reports will identify the best foundation design, and standard construction practice will assure that no problems will result from the construction of the proposed buildings. In regards to the Villa Balboa area, any build-up of ground water in the area would not undermine foundations, due to the fact that no displacement of soil supporting the founda- tion is possible and the conditions for liquefaction do not exist in the mesa top. Liability of City Regarding Slope Stability. The City Attorney is preparing a supplemental memo addressing this issue,which will be distributed to the City Council prior to the March 30, 1992 meeting. Traffic Service on Coast Highway. As part of the environmental review process, a complete traffic study was prepared. The study was in two sections, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis for Phase I of the project, and a long range, project build-out analysis for the entire proposal. The ICU Summary for the Phase I project is as follows: ICU SUMMARY Existing Existing +Committed PEAK Existing +Committed +Growth Intersection HOUR (1990) +Growth +Project Coast Highway/ AM 0.51 0.64 0.65 Orange Street PM 0.72 0.64 0.65 Coast Highway/ AM 0.60 0.73 0.74 Prospect Street PM 0.87 0.75 0.76 Coast Highway/ AM 0.65 0.72 0.73 Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. PM 0.64 0.68 0.69 Coast Highway/ AM 0.25 0.33 0.34 Balboa Coves-Hoag Hospital?M 0.29 0.37 0.43 Coast Highway/ AM 0.35 0.41 0.42 Newport Boulevard Ramp PM 0.40 0.46 0.47 TO: City Council - 15. Coast Highway/ AM 0.67 0.82 0.83 Riverside Avenue PM 0.74 0.84 0.85 Coast Highway/ AM 0.66 0.80 0.81 Tustin Avenue PM 0.58 0.71 0.75 Coast Highway/ AM 0.63 0.72 0.72 Dover Dr:Bayshore Dr. PM 0.65 0.75 0.76 Coast Highway/ AM 0.75 0.86 0.87 Bayside Drive PM 0.69 0.82 0.83 Coast Highway/ AM 0.72 0.82 0.83 Jamboree Road PM 0.63 0.75 0.77 Newport Boulevard/ AM 0.54 0.61 0.64 Hospital Road PM 0.75 0.86 0.89 Superior Avenue/ AM 0.51 0.52 0.54 Placentia Avenue PM 0.51 0.54 0.54 In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the period of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the intersections affected by the project operate at an acceptable level. The project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The General Plan build-out analysis provided projected ICU values with and without the Master Plan, as follows: ICU SUMMARY PEAK 2010 2010 ICU Intersection HOUR w/o Hoag with Hoag Differential Coast Highway/ AM 0.78 0.79 0.01 Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. PM 0.72 0.73 0.01 Coast Highway/ AM 0.44 0.46 0.02 Balboa Coves-Hoag Hospital PM 0.41 0.49 0.08 Coast Highway/ AM 0.62 0.64 0.02 Newport Boulevard Ramp PM 0.58 0.59 0.01 TO: City Council - 16. Coast Highway/ AM 0.58 0.58 0.00 Riverside Avenue PM 0.70 0.72 0.02 Coast Highway/ AM 0.55 0.55 0.00 Tustin Avenue PM 0.65 0.66 0.01 Coast Highway/ AM 0.80 0.81 0.01 Dover Dr:Bayshore Dr. PM 0.80 0.82 0.02 Coast Highway/ AM 0.68 0.69 0.01 Bayside Drive PM 0.87 0.82 (0.05) Coast Highway/ AM 0.79 0.81 0.02 Jamboree Road PM 0.80 0.82 0.02 Newport Boulevard/ AM 0.59 0.60 0.01 Via Lido PM 0.71 0.72 0.01 Newport Boulevard/ AM 0.73 0.83 0.10 Hospital Road PM 0.84 0.87 0.03 Superior Avenue/ AM 0.47 0.51 0.04 Placentia Avenue PM 0.57 0.61 0.04 As is illustrated by the previous charts, levels of service in the area of Hoag Hospital stay within the City's defined acceptable threshold of LOS D for the build-out of the project. Superior Avenue Access Road. Testimony has been received voicing concerns related to the safety of the secondary access point proposed on Superior Avenue. The primary concerns addressed are the grade of Superior Avenue and potential sight distance problems. It is the opinion of staff that the intersection can be constructed to safely handle the traffic entering and exiting this driveway. There are no visual obstructions between this access point on Superior Avenue and the West Coast Highway intersection. Additionally, there is a clear view uphill of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the sidewalk. This access point will be a right-turn in and right-turn out only, and acceleration/deceleration lanes will be required if future studies indicate they are necessary to reduce interference with through traffic on Superior Avenue. The Council also requested information regarding the advisability of installing a traffic signal at this location. A signal at this location is not needed because the through traffic will not be interrupted by right turn movements since they can be handled by accelera- tion/deceleration lanes if any interference is anticipated. The traffic signal at Coast Highway will provide sufficient gaps in traffic on Superior Avenue to allow vehicles to use the driveway without interfering with northbound traffic. A full intersection at this location TO: City Council - 17. is not advisable because of the curves and long left turn lane on southbound Superior Avenue. Definition of Critical Care. The following definition of critical care has been provided by Hoag Hospital: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian's Critical Care units provide quality nursing care for critically ill patients. Patients are candidates for critical care if they require constant observation and technically complex nursing care. These patients include those who are hemody- namically unstable, on mechanical ventilation, require constant monitoring receiving vasoactive drugs, or experiencing life threatening dysrhythmias Critical Care units are staffed with a minimum of one registered nurse for every two patients. Depending upon the severity of the patients condition, one nurse may be assigned to provide total care for the patient. At all times, patients are directly observed by the nursing staff. In comparison, unless the patients condition warrants more direct care hours, medical/surgical patients receive care at a ratio of one registered nurse per seven patients. Occupancy of Acute Care Facilities. Hoag Hospital has provided the following information on the occupancy Critical/Intensive Care Units. a aci Beds Surgical Intensive Care Unit 11 Coronary/Medical Intensive Care Unit 12 23 Sub Intensive Care Unit 16 TOTAL INTENSIVE CARE BEDS 39 Census Year Patient Da s Average Dail Census Occupancy 1989 12,933 35.5 91.0% 1990 14,126 38.8 99.5% 1991 13,242 36.4 93.3% TO: City Council - 18. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Hoag Hospital Master Plan Critical Care/Surgery Addition (CCSA). 2. Potential Mitigation Sites Preliminary Survey Report. 3. List of Hospitals Located Near Earthquake Faults. PL11:..\CC\AMD\A744.S13 Planning Commission Meeting Febru= 20, 1992 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH t TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Amendment No 7M (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community District Regulations and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for Hoag Hospital. The proposal would establish regulations and development standards for the long term build-out of acute and non-acute health care facilities. The proposal also includes an amendment to Districting Maps No. 22 and 22-A so as to redistrict the hospital property from the A-P-H and U (Unclassified) Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District; an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to amend the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the Lower Campus wholly within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District; and the approval of a development agreement and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No 81 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction of Phase I of the Hoag Memorial Hospital master plan of development. AND C. Variance No 1180 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to exceed the Base FAR of 0.5 up to the maximum FAR of 0.65 consistent with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element and Chapter 20.07.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: Lower Campus: A portion of Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 4000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Superior Avenue. TO: Planning Commission - 2. Upper Campus:Parcel No. 1 of Record'of Survey 15-30,located at 301 Newport Boulevard,on the southwesterly corner of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard. ZONE: A.P-H and U (Unclassified) APPLICANT. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant Bac and Amendment No. 744, Traffic Study No. 81 and Variance No. 1180 were previously considered by the Planning Commission on December 5, 1991, January 9 and 23, and February 6, 1992. 'During the course of public testimony, a number of issues have been identified by the Planning Commission and staff for additional discussion. Staff has also been working with the staff of Hoag Hospital to resolve some of the areas of disagreement in'technical mitigation measures and conditions of approval. This report contains discussion of the significant alterations to proposed project requirements. Since these suggestions will result in changes to the Findings and Conditions for Approval previously provided to the Commission, revised findings in stdkeeut and 'to ,format have also been prepared and are attached to this report. Many issues have not yet been resolved. These issues have been summarized on a straw votes checklist developed by staff to aid the deliberations of the Planning Commission. It is important to note that this list outlines staffs perception of the issues yet to be resolved and the potential solutions to those issues. It should not be considered a limitation on items to be addressed by the Planning Commission, nor should the potential solutions be considered the only approach to be considered. Additional items can be added either before or during the meeting. Discussion Issues Resolved Prior to this Meeting. Issues which were previously indicated by Hoag Hospital as being of concern which have been resolved are: 1. Language regarding the undergrounding of utilities on the upper campus. (Mitigation Measure No. 77) 2. Language regarding large vehicle limitations during summer construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 91) 3. Language regarding the mitigation of wetlands in the City-of Newport Beach. (Mitigation Measure No. 105) M i TO. Planning Commission - 3. Issues Included on Checklist But Not I iscussed in This Report. The following issues are included in the checklist but are not discussed in this report. These items have been discussed in previous reports. • Site area for the purpose of determining floor area limits on lower campus - Report of December Sth, Page 4. • Service road noise studies and restrictions - Report of December 5th, Page 5. • Building heights near Cancer Center - Report of December 5th, Page 6. • Sound attenuation for Loading Docks - Report of December 5th, Page 9. • West side upper campus setback - Reports of December 5th (Page 8) and February 6th (Page 11). Term of Development Agreement. The Planning Commission has expressed a concern relative to the term of the development agreement. In response, the previous set of conditions prepared for the February 6th Commission meeting suggested a revised term of 20 years. In further discussions with the hospital, it was pointed out that the project has an estimated time frame of three 7 year phases, or a total of 21 years. The hospital has argued that some allowance be made for additional delays. Therefore, in the new conditions, staff has suggested a term of 25 years. The hospital has indicated that the minimum term acceptable is 30 years. Q$jective Standards to Regulate Mass and Bulk on West Coast Highway, Staff and the hospital have spent considerable time on the issue of the setback from West Coast Highway and the articulation requirements proposed in the previous report. While still not totally in agreement, a revised approach has been agreed upon. Included in this approach is the incorporation of an additional limitation suggested by Hoag Hospital to require 20% of the linear frontage within 150 feet of West Coast Highway to be open and unoccupied by buildings. Hospital and City staff still differ on the setback dimensions and articulation percentages. The revised language suggested by staff and specific objections of Hoag Hospital are set forth in detail in the straw vote checklist. It is the opinion of staff that enhanced setback and articulation requirements will address the primary concerns of the Planning Commission which resulted in the consideration of the site plan review proposal. In order to provide for some flexibility, it is also suggested by staff that these requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process. In order to approve the height limits requested on the lower campus, the Planning Commission must make the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance and discussed in detail in the previous report (February 6th). It is the opinion of staff that these findings can only be made if setback and articulation, requirements, in some form, are adopted in combination with the recommended height limits. 0 i w TO: Planning Commission - 4. Newport Boulev rd Setback The original set of P-C Text revisions suggested by staff included a setback requirement on the easterly side of the upper campus at the existing top of slope. The Hospital objected to this provision due to a lack of specificity. Staff then altered the suggestion to a 25 foot setback. The Hospital's original proposal would allow for no setback for 500 feet from the corner of Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road, and a 15 foot setback for the remainder of the Newport Boulevard frontage. The Hospital has indicated disagreement with the suggested 25 foot setback. Staff has researched this issue and continues to suggest a 25 foot setback on Newport Boulevard. This is due to the visual prominence of the hospital site from this side (due to the location at the top of a slope) and the fact that the height limit proposed for this area is 140 feet. For the information of the Planning Commission, the hospital property line is where the existing chain link fence is located,and a 25 foot setback line would run through the existing satellite dish and the mature trees at the top of slope. Bgycle Bridge Costs, The Public Works Department has conservatively estimated the cost of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Superior Avenue to be $400,000. Staff has, therefore, revised the suggested language to include a precise contribution-amount. Payback provisions have also been incorporated into the language. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By P41X 4 C2442L_ Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Revised Exhibit "A" 2. Revised Draft Resolution - Amendment No. 744 3. Straw Vote Checklist 4. Correspondence PA'1%..\PCV Mn\A744.sx4 a� • Attachment 1 TO: Planning Commission - 5. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 142 AMENDMENT NO. 744 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 81 VARIANCE NO. 1180 A. Environmental Impact Report No. 142 Findin 1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the project have been identified and analyzed in the EIR. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance, except in the areas of Land Use and Construction Noise,and that the only remaining environmen- tal effects are significant only on a cumulative basis. Further, that the economic and social benefits to the community override the remaining significant environmental effect anticipated as a result of the project. 4. a #Iit detaxle�f atte iia Ives u project weire`exax�azzted"an conssiijor ley tU auntng�`4�m1If W*nx and tbw,based upon the infurtnat€( contained in the pub`lf4 record,'ft has been. detex-deed tW theI pLoject as rxz suppxior from a pl u?t�in a# . uvirdnir ntal ROPY 4 . That the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report has been considered in the various decisions made relative to this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall document to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that grading and development of the site shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and with plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. These plans shall TO: Planning Commission - 6. r r incorporate the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist, subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic.investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built"'grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department by the project sponsor. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit documen- tation to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that allcutslopes shall be monitored for potential instabilities by the project geotechnical engineer during all site grading and construction activities. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct compre- hensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. This investigation shall also identify construction excavation techniques which ensure no damage and minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. This investigation shall provide verification of the potential presence of the Baico and unnamed faults on site. All recommendations contained in this investigation shall be incorporated into project construction and design plans. A copy of this investigation shall be submitted to the City for review. 4. Prior to the completion of the final design phase, the project sponsor shall demon- strate to the City of Newport Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed to the most recent seismic standards applicable to hospital related structures and as specified in the"City adopted version of the Uniform Build- ing Code. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall ensure that geotechnical recommendations included in"Report of Geo- technical Evaluation for Preparation of Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Campus, 301 Newport Boulevard, Newport, California" as prepared by LeRoy Crandall Associates, June, 1989, and in the report prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3, are followed. 6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall conduct a soil corrosivity evaluation. This evaluation shall be conducted by an expert in the field of corrosivity. The site evaluation shall be designed to address soils to at least the depth to which excavation is planned. At a minimum, at least one sample from each soil type should be evaluated. Appropriate personnel protection should be worn by field personnel during the field evaluation. In the event soils are found to be corrosive,the source and extent of the corrosive soils should be determined and fully understood. This is important for the development of mitigation measures to control the potential impact of corrosive soils over time. 7. Based on the corrosion assessment and source determination,a soils and construction material compatibility evaluation should also be undertaken, concluding with the appropriate mitigation measures and design criteria. Corrosionresistant construction materials are commonly available and should be used where design specifications TO. Planning Commission - 7. • require protection. For example, there Ore many elastomers-and plastics, like PVC, which are resistant to corrosion by up to 70 percent sulfuric acid at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. 8. Should the soil be identified as hazardous due the severeness of their corrosivity(i.e., a PH less than 2.5), on-site remediation.by neutralization should be undertaken prior to construction. Appropriate regulatory agency approvals and permits should also be obtained. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that a construc- tion erosion control plan is submitted to the City of Newport Beach that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and includes procedures to minimize potential impacts of silt, debris, dust and other water pollutants. These procedures may include: • the replanting of exposed slopes within 30 days after grading or as required by the City Engineer. • the use of sandbags to slow the velocity of or divert stormflows. • the limiting of grading to the non-rainy season. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the project sponsor shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesti- cides,and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 11. The project sponsor shall continue the current practice of routine vacuuming of all existing parking lots and structures for all future parking lots and structures. Upon implementation of the County of Orange Storm Water Master Plan, routine vacu- uming shall be done in accordance with the requirements specified in the plan. 12. Upon completion of final building construction plans, and prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase of development, the project sponsor shall ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of Newport Beach Building Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and of erosive runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 13. Prior to the completion of final construction plans, the project sponsor shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical/hydrologic study to the City of Newport Beach Build- e Y TO: Planning Commission - 8. t � ing Department, which includes data on groundwater. This study shall also deter- mine the necessity for a construction dewatering program and subdrain system. 14. Prior to the completion of final building construction plans for each phase of Lower Campus development,the project sponsor shall submit an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for an NPDES permit if a construction dewatering or subdrain program is determined necessary. Also,if required by RWQCB,the project sponsor shall also conduct groundwater sampling and analysis, and submit it to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region. The results of this testing will assist in determining the specifications for the NPDES permit. 15. Project Sponsor shall continue compliance with its Hazardous Material and Waste Management Program and its Infectious Control Manual for all new activities associated with the proposed Master Plan, as well as comply with all new regulations enacted between now and completion of the proposed Master Plan. 16. The federal wetland regulations and requirements shall be reviewed by the City and the project sponsor at the time the proposed work is undertaken, and the project sball comply with all applicable laws concerning removal and mitigation of wetlands at that time. If this review results in a finding that mitigation is required for impacts t to the 1.07 acres of wetlands dominated by pampas grass, such mitigation Will be accomplished as part of the mitigation required for impacts to sensitive wetland plant communities (Mitigation Measures 14 and 15). 17. The project sponsor shall prepare a comprehensive restoration and management plan for the wetland mitigation site as required by law. This plan will be submitted to the following agencies for their review and approval/ concurrence prigr,to issuance of grading and/or building Permits for Master Plan development. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish and Gamez City Newport i of Ne ort Beach on an shall be approved as art of the-Coastal Develop- mentresulting mitigation Corps Permit for the project. The plan shall also be approved as part o rp 1 Under the existing regulations, the Corps and USFWS would be consulted as part of the Section 404 permitting process. However,if proposed changes to the regulations result in removal of the project site from Corps jurisdiction,these agencies would not be required to review the wetland mitigation plan. 2 Regardless of other considerations,CDFG will review the wetland mitigation plan for the City of Newport Beach as part of the t Coastal Development Permit process;CDFG review would also be provided as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement,It required. I TO: PIa• Commission - 9. • Section 404 Permit and Streambed Alteration Agreement, if applicable. The exis- tence of a wetland mitigation plan approved by the appropriate agencies will be re- quired prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits for Master Plan develop- ment in any areas affecting wetlands. 19. The plan will be consistent with the following provisions: The amount of new wetlands created under the mitigation plan shall be at least of equal size to the area of sensitive wetland communities impacted by the project. The wildlife habitat values in the newly created wetlands shall not be less than those lost as the result of removal of sensitive wetland com- munities for project implementation. • The wetland creation shall not decrease the habitat values of any area important to maintenance of sensitive plant or wildlife populations. The wetland mitigation planning effort will take into consideration cre- ation of 0.2 acre of salt grass habitat suitable for use by wandering skipper; such consideration would be dependent on the nature of the mitigation plan undertaken and whether wandering skipper could potentially occur in the mitigation area. The plan will constitute an agreement between the applicant and the resource agencies involved. The plan shall be written so as to guaran- tee wetland restoration in accordance with stated management objec- tives within a specified time frame. The plan shall describe the applicant's responsibilities for making any unforseen repairs or modi- fications to the restoration plan in order to meet the stated objectives of the plan. 20. The following detailed information will be provided by the project sponsor in the final mitigation plan: • Diagrams drawn to scale showing any alterations to natural landforms; • A list of plant species to be used; • The method of plant introduction (i.e., seeding, natural succession, vegetative transplanting, etc.); and • Details of the short-term and long-term monitoring plans, including financing of the monitoring plans. TO: Planning Commission - 10. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an Orange County certified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the grading across the project area. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, at which time monitoring procedures will be established,including procedures for halting or redirecting work to permit the assessment, and possible salvage, of unearthed cultural material. 22. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an Orange County certified paleontologist shall be retained to monitor the grading activities. The paleontologist shall be present at the pregrading conference, at which time procedures for monitoring will be established,including the temporary halting or redirecting of work to permit the evaluation, and possible salvage, of any exposed fossils. All fossils and their contex- tual stratigraphic data will go to an Orange County institution with an educational and/or research interest in the materials. 23. The project sponsor shall construct, if feasible and by mutual agreement, and maintain a fence along the common property line west of the Upper Campus. The proposed design of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Department. 24. The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). Those requirements that are superseded by the PCDP and District Regulations are not con- sidered applicable. The following discretionary approvals are required by the City of Newport Beach: EIR certification, adoption of the Master Plan, adoption of the Planned Community Development Plan and District Regulations, approval of a De- velopment Agreement, approval of a zone change to Planned Community District, grading permits, and building permits for some facilities. The California Coastal Commission has the discretionary responsibility to issue a Coastal Development Permit for the Lower Campus and a Local Coastal Program Amendment for the Lower Campus. 25. Subsequent to the Phase I project,the project sponsor shall conduct aTraffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO)analysis for Phase H and III Master Plan development. The results of the analysis will identify potential intersection impacts,the proposed project traffic volume contributions at these impacted intersections, and the schedule for proposed intersection improvements, if necessary. This report will be submitted to the City prior to commencement of Phase H or III construction. 26. Prior to development of the Phase I project, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. This study will demonstrate that traffic to be generated by existing plus Phase I develop- ment will not exceed 1,338 PM peak hour traffic trips. 27. Subsequent to completion of Phase 1 Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall conduct a project trip generation study to the satisfaction of the City Traffic TO: Planning Commission - 11. Engineer. This study will demonstrate that the traffic to be generated by the subse- quent phases of development(Phases II and III)will not exceed 1,856 PM peak hour trips when added to the trips generated by existing(including Phase I)Hoag Hospital development. The frequency at which this study shall be conducted is at the dis- cretion of the City Traffic Engineer. 28. As mandated by law under the Southern California Air Quality Management De- mand (SCAQMD) Regulation 15, firms with greater than 100 employees must implement a feasible ridesharing or carpooling program intended to reduce total project trip generation by 15%. Therefore, since hospital staff currently exceeds 100, the project sponsor shall continue to comply with Regulation 15. The peak hour traffic demand at the constrained intersections will result in lower ICU values than those identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan with the current Hoag Master Plan. 29. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach, in response to the County wide Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requirements, is preparing a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. The project shall comply with the final City of Newport Beach Transportation Demand Management Ordinance approved by the City Council. Compliance with this Ordinance will result in provision of facility policies to encourage alternative modes of transportation and a reduction in single occupant commute trips. 30. In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for employees,visitors and patrons of the Hospital, the following transit amenities should be incorporated into the Master Plan project: The provision of bus turnouts shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and, if deemed necessary, shall be provided by the project sponsor at all current bus stop locations adjacent to the project site. Bus turnouts shall be provided in accordance with standard design guidelines as indicated in OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities. 31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program that monitors and manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non-working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency products) during working hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by hospital employees, physicians, patients and visitors during non-working hours, and other methods by which to restrict use. The hospital will also request that vendors not deliver (i.e., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the TO: .Planning Commission - 12. grading permit. If such results indicate that such controls significantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City would require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation im- pacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. 32. Prior to issuance of approvals for development phases subsequent to Phase I, the applicant shall submit to the City Traffic Engineer for his/her review and approval a study that identifies the appropriate parking generation rates for the proposed parking supply. The findings of this study shall be based on empirical or survey data for the proposed parking rates. 33. Prior to site plan approval for the phase of Master Plan development that includes new, or modifications to existing, internal roadways (other than service roads), the project sponsor will prepare an internal circulation plan for submittal to and approval by the Director of Public Works that demonstrates that the internal backup will'be minimized to the extent feasible. 34. Depending on actual site build out, intersection improvements may be required at the Hospital Road (Upper Campus access)Placentia Avenue Intersection and at the WCH (Lower Campus access) intersection. The need for these improvements shall be assessed during subsequent traffic studies to be conducted in association with Mitigation Measure 24. 35. As each phase of the Master Plan is constructed, the project sponsor shall provide each new employee a packet outlining the available ridesharing services and pro- grams and the number of the Transportation Coordinator. All new employees shall be included in the yearly update of the trip reduction plan for Hoag Hospital', as required by Regulation XV. 36. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development,the project sponsor shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment incorporated within each phase. 37. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of development, the project proponent shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that energy efficient lighting has been incorporated into the project design. 38. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of Master Plan development, the project sponsor shall provide evidence that site plans incorporate the site development requirements of Ordinance No. 91-16, as appropriate, to the TO: Planning Commission - 13. Traffic Engineering Division and Planning Department for review and Planning Commission approval. Requirements outlined in the Ordinance include: 1) A minimum of five percent of the provided parking at new facilities shall be reserved for carpools. These parking places shall be located near the employee en- trance or at other preferential locations. 2) A minimum of two bicycle lockers per 100 employers shall be provided. Addi- tional lockers shall be provided at such time as demand warrants. 3) A minimum of one shower and two lockers shall be provided. 4) Information of transportation alternatives shall be provided to all employees. 5) A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated in the parking area. 6) The design of all parking facilities shall incorporate provisions for access and parking of vanpool vehicles. 7) Bus stop improvements shall be required for developments located along arterials where public transit exists or is anticipated to exist within five years. The exact number of each of the above facilities within each phase of the Master Plan would be determined during City review of grading and building permit applications for each phase. The types and numbers of facilities required of each phase will reflect the content of the Ordinance at the time that a permit application is deemed complete by the Planning Department. 39. If noise levels in on-site outdoor noise sensitive use areas exceed 65 CNEI, the project sponsor shall develop measures that will attenuate the noise to acceptable levels for proposed hospital facilities. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. 40. Prior to occupancy of Master Plan facilities, interior noise levels shall be monitored to ensure that on-site interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. If levels exceed 45 CNEI, mitigation such as window modifications shall be implemented to reduce noise to acceptable levels. 41. Prior to issuance of a grading and or building permit the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that existing noise levels associated with the on-site exhaust fan are mitigated to acceptable levels. Similarly, the project sponsor shall demon- strate that all noise levels generated by new mechanical equipment associated with the Master Plan are mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. TO: Planning Commission - 14. 42. The City of Newport Beach shall send a letter to each emergency vehicle company that delivers patients to Hoag Hospital requesting that,upon entrance to either the Upper or Lower Campus, emergency vehicles turn off their sirens to help minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. Hoag Hospital will provide the City with a list of all emergency vehicle companies that deliver patients to Hoag Hospital. 43. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project sponsor shall ensure that alandscape and irrigation plan is prepared for each building/improvement with- in the overall Master Plan. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscap- ing with the proposed construction schedule. The.plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval by the Planning De- partment and Public Works Department. 44. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which detail the lighting system for all buildings and window systems for buildings on the western side of the Upper Campus. The systems shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared' and signed by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 45. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 46. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical equipment will not be located on the roof top of any structure on the Lower Campus. Rather, such buildings will have clean rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the build- ing roof using materials compatible with building materials. 47. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the project sponsor shall make an irrevocable offer to dedicate and grade the proposed linear and consolidated view park as identified in the project description(Figure 3.2.1.) The project sponsor will dedicate land for a 0.28 acre consolidated view park and a 0.52 acre linear view park. 48. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any lower campus structure, the project sponsor shall prepare a study of each proposed building project to assure confor- mance with the EIR view impact analysis and the PCDP and District Regulations, to ensure that the visual impacts identified in the EIR are consistent with actual . • . 0 TO: Planning Commission - 15. Master Plan development. This analysis shall be submitted to and approved by the City. 49. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construc- tion, the project sponsor shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20,Chapter 6.5),standards established by the California Department of Health Servi- ces, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30, Chapter 22. 50. Prior to construction of structures over or near the Wilshire oil well,Project Sponsor shall ensure that the Wilshire oil well, or any abandoned, unrecorded well or pressure relief well, is re-abandoned to the current standards. Abandonment plans will be submitted to DOG for approval prior to the abandonment procedures. The City's building official shall be notified that the reabandonment was carried out according to DOG procedures. 51. To further determine the source of the gas on the Lower Campus site, prior to issuance of a grading permit on the Lower Campus,Project Sponsor shall collect gas samples from the nearest fire flooding wells and at Newport Beach Townhomes and compare the gas samples to samples taken from the Hoag gas collection wells prior to site grading and construction. 52. A soil gas sampling and monitoring program should be considered for the areas to be graded and/or excavated. Systematic sampling and analysis should include methane and hydrogen sulfide gas. Samples should be taken just below the surface, at depth intervals within the removal zone, and at a depth below the depth of actual disturbance. (The individuals) performing this initial study may be at risk of exposure to significant - and possibly lethal - doses of hydrogen sulfide, and should be appropriately protected as required.) 53. A site safety plan should be developed that addresses the risks associated with exposures to methane and hydrogen sulfide. Each individual taking part in the sampling and monitoring program should receive training on the potential hazards and on proper personal protective equipment. This training should be at least at the level required by CAR 2910.120. 54. If the analysis of the initial soil gas samples show unacceptable levels of hazardous constituents that have the potential to pose a health risk during construction activities, additional gas collection wells should be drilled to contain and collect the gas. 55. It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities i TO: Planning Commission - 16. that may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. We recommend a continuous monitor in the immediate vicinity of the excavation, and that a personal monitor, with an alarm, be worn by each worker with a potential for exposure. 56. A study of other hazardous constituents that may be present in quantities that pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to the initiation of the project. These may include compounds that are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 57. An initial study should be considered that characterizes the wells, the influent gas, and the effluent of the flare. Results of samples taken in December, 1991, indicate concentration of hydrogen sulfide on the order of 3000 ppm. This elevated concentration, if inhaled, could be lethal. It also is likely to produce a high concentration of sulfur dioxide as a product of its combustion. We therefore recommend this study to characterize the gas over a period of time, to allow for potential fluctuations in concentration and rate. 58. It is recommended that, based on this study, a scrubber system be considered to reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the influent gas. This would significantly reduce the risk of exposure to lethal and extremely hazardous concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, and the potentially hazardous and toxic products of its combustion. 59. In the event additional gases are to be collected from newly constructed collection wells as part of a measure to reduce exposures during construction, an evaluation of the capacity and efficiency of the present flare system should be conducted prior to connecting any new sources. 60. An automatic relight system should be installed on the flare system to reduce the risk of a potential release of high concentration of hydrogen sulfide. The system should be designed with an alarm system that notifies a remote location which is manned 24 hours per day. 61. A continuous hydrogen sulfide monitor that would give warning of a leak of concentrations in excess of acceptable levels should be installed in the vicinity of the flare. 62. A study of the concentration of potential hazardous constituents should be considered for completion prior to initiation of the project to characterize the wastewater and any risks it may pose to human health prior to development. A stormwater pollution prevention plan should be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of hazardous constituents from the site. 63. Evaluation of existing vent systems should be considered to determine whether there are emissions in excess of acceptable levels being emitted into the atmosphere. Any TO: Planning Commission - 17. additional new vents installed should be analyzed and evaluated in terms of potential hazards or human health effects. Vents that may pose a threat to human health or the environment should be connected to a scrubber and/or flare system. 64. If warranted based on analytical results, an air dispersion model should be considered in order to predict the cumulative effects of the emissions. 65. The construction of new buildings and other ancillary facilities at the subject site should include hydrogen sulfide monitoring equipment with alarms to a manned remote location. The proposed LEL monitoring is likely to detect hazardous concentration of methane,but will not detect unacceptable levels of hydrogen sulfide. 66. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that the fault traversing the site is trenched and monitored for gas prior to site grading and con- struction. If gas monitoring indicates a potential risk during grading, additional gas collection wells will be drilled to collect and contain the gas. 67. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach ensuring that all structures built on the Lower Campus are designed for protection from gas accumulation and seepage,based on the recommen- dations of a geotechnical engineer. 68. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach indicating where gas test boring will be drilled under each proposed main building site once specific building plans are complete. Such testing shall be carried out, and test results submitted to the City's building official, prior to issuance of grading permits. If a major amount of gas is detected, a directionally drilled well will be permanently completed and put into the existing gas collection system. 69. Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach, indicating that all buildings and parking lots on the Lower Campus will be constructed with passive gas collection systems under the foundations. Such a system typically consists of perforated PVC pipes laid in parallel lengths below the founda- tion. Riser type vents will be attached to light standards and building high points. Additionally, parking lots on the Lower Campus will contain unpaved planter areas and vertical standpipes located at the end of each length of PVC pipe. The standpipes will serve to vent any collected gas to the atmosphere. A qualified geo- technical firm shall be retained to design such systems. 70. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the Building Department, City of Newport Beach, demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus are sealed from gas migration. Such sealing may be installed by the use of chlorinated polyethylene sheeting or similar approved system. � a - TO: Planning Commission - 18. 71. Prior to issuance of building permits, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building and Fire Departments demonstrating that all buildings on the Lower Campus will be equipped with methane gas sensors. Such sensors will be installed in areas of likely accumulation, such as utility or other seldom used rooms. Sensors can monitor on a continuous basis, and can be tied into fire alarm systems for 24 hour surveillance. 72. To avoid possible accumulation of gas in utility or other seldom used service or storage rooms, Project Sponsor shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits indicating that such rooms are serviced by the buildings' central air conditioning system(or an otherwise positive ventilation system that circulates and replaces the air in such rooms on a continuous basis). 73. During construction, Project Sponsor shall ensure that an explosimeter is used to monitor methane levels and percentage range. Additionally,construction contractors shall be required to have a health and safety plan that includes procedures for work- er/site safety for methane. If dangerous levels of methane are discovered, construc- tion in the vicinity shall stop, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department shall be notified and appropriate procedures followed in order to contain the methane to ac- ceptable and safe levels. 74. The Project Sponsor may remove the flare system, contain the gas and utilize the gas for Lower Campus facilities. During the containment process and removal of the flare, the project sponsor shall ensure that methane levels are monitored throughout the project area to ensure that this transition does not create an upset in methane levels or create odors or risk of explosion. 75. To the satisfaction of the City building official, the Project Sponsor shall expand existing hazardous infectious,radiological disposal facilities to add additional storage areas as necessary to accommodate the additional waste to be generated by the expanded facilities. 76. The Project Sponsor shall provide evidence to the Planning Director that measures to ensure implementation and continued compliance with all applicable SCAQMD Air Toxic Rules, specifically Rules 1401, 1403, 1405 and 1415, are being carried out. 77. In conjunction with the �"rSteai mar&.x'�ure adilifiat( expaesien, the Project Sponsor will place the overhead power lines located west o the Upper Campus underground if feasible. 78. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, emergency fire access to the site shall be approved by the City Public Works and Fire Departments. To.. Planning Commission - 19. 79. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. The project sponsor will also comply with any other City adopted water conservation policies. 80. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The project sponsor shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project development. 81. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department,that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 82. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City Fire Department that all existing and new access roads surrounding the project site shall be designated as fire lanes, and no parking shall be permitted unless the accessway meets minimum width requirements of the Public Works and Fire Departments. Parallel parking on one side may be permitted if the road is a minimum 32 feet in width. 83. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that the thermal integrity of new buildings are improved with automated time clocks or occupant sensors to reduce the thermal load. 84. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the City that window glazing,wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods have been incorporated into building designs. 85. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall demonstrate that building designs incorporate efficient heating units and other appliances, such as water heater, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units. 86. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall incorporate into building designs, where feasible, passive solar designs and solar heaters. 87. The project sponsor shall ensure that all cut material is disposed of at either an environmentally cleared development site or a certified landfill. Also, all material exported off site shall be disposed of at an environmentally certified development cleared landfill with adequate capacity. 88. In conjunction with the application for a grading permit, the project sponsor shall submit a construction phasing and traffic control plan for each phase of development. This plan would identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, TO: Planning Commission - 20. signage, etc.). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 89. The project sponsor shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 90. The project sponsor shall provide advance written notice of temporary traffic disrup- tions to affected areas, businesses and the public. This notice shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. 91. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities requiring more than oauf truck (i.e., multiple axle vehicle) trips per hour, such as excavation and con- crete pours, shall be limited between June 1 and September 1 to avoid traffic conflicts with beach and tourist traffic. At all other times, such activities shall be limited to lea truck (i.e., multiple axle vehi le) rips per hour unle§s otherwise approved by the City traffic engineer. au geitib otts w � io�r8�p teui3li � eparmn ad�ifiati xesltnns xnxy beliecT 3f ttaflfa Gnuestlottxnblem 92. The project sponsor shall ensure that all trucks used for hauling material shall be covered to minimize material loss during transit. 93. Project sponsor shall ensure that all project related grading shall be performed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance which contains procedures and requirements relative to dust control, erosion and siltation control, noise, and other grading related activities. 94. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall demonstrate com- pliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will require watering during the morning and evening prior to or after earth moving operations. To further reduce dust generation, grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (MPH), and soil binders on SCAQMD approved chemical stabilizers should be spread on con- struction sites or unpaved areas. Additional measures to control fugitive dust include street sweeping of roads used by construction vehicles, reduction of speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hours, suspension of operations during first and second stage smog alerts, and wheel washing before construction vehicles leave the site. 95. Prior to issuance of any grading and building permit, the project sponsor shall submit a Trip Reduction Plan for construction crew members. This plan shall identify TO: Planning Commission - 21. measures,such as ride-sharing and transit incentives, to reduce vehicle miles traveled by construction crews. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 96. The project sponsor shall ensure that low emission mobile and stationary equipment is utilized during construction, and low sulfur fuel is utilized in stationary equipment, when available. Evidence of this fact shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. 97. The project sponsor shall ensure that all internal combustion engines associated with construction activities shall be fitted with properly maintained mufflers and kept in proper tune. 98. The project sponsor shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accor- dance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours'of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall,while engaged in construction, remodeling, dig- ging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 99. r be Tspeeh-e pro ct spons€sr S1#cn11 depc M6 .W Q dow account"e��1�is d !�'# iy o� ewv�axt Leh il4,i ? £ur the �ropwg ttf defraying 5QVo of the osts of-the plar{ned pedestdan/bigdo brides au itpe or Avenue. ii'the actual cost o£the bridge is greater(hark estitr teal the sux� itaUl be c4rtsidered to be She f ti ligdtlort tr£the spital >f �ast of tb ridge is tess, the City shy-rdwI4 fto differwo to tho hospital, 'lwltis�eptlsir s made prior to the issuance of the ixtitial mass grading permit the bzcyrd�e pedestrian bridgd is t constructed by the,!Aty with 101 ars;?tlfrs a tt3r $ litcl x ii d. ry the ity. 1 z�sp*tali 100. Roof top mechanical equipment screening on the emergency room expansion shall not extend closer than fifteen feet from the west edge of the structure and no closer than ten feet from the edge of the structure on any other side. 101. Noise from the emergency room expansion roof top mechanical equipment shall not exceed 55 dBA at the property line. 102. The project sponsor shall pay 75% of the cost of planting thirty 24 inch ficus trees (or the equivalent) in the berm between the service road and Villa Balboa southerly of the tennis courts. Planting shall occur on Villa Balboa property. TO: Planning Commission - 22. 103. Use of the heliport/helipad shall be limited to emergency medical purposes or the transportation of critically ill patients in immediate need of medical care not avail- able at Hoag Hospital. Helicopters shall, to the extent feasible,arrive at, and depart from the helipad, from the northeast, to mitigate noise impacts on residential units to the west and south. 104. For any building subject to the issuance of the building permit by the Office of the State Architect, Hoag Hospital shall submit to the State Architect a letter from the i City of Newport Beach indicating that review of the construction plans has been completed and that the plans are in compliance with all City requirements. 105. Wetlands mitigation, as required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the California Coastal Commission,shallbc at a ratio of 1.5:1 for those areas determined by the permitting agencies as subject to mitigation requirements. a t IN#"--aff b� ��Cif'l�e�i't`��"-t��t mitigation s#�1 occur within, the corporate boundaries of the City of Newport Beach or its westerly Sphere-of-Influence. w ga att� ,pectic ait�"d�t�is Ica �pntr'�u�ii�i�"a7�vi` "clrn�" ief �`la�rtf�,e�,,-,.,t�ttt vr��the J.ac1t't�,f�pa�o�rx�t��titigat�bn t;�t�� le'�kt�J 106. Non-vehicular activities, such as the operation of the sterilizer and trash compactor, which occur in the vicinity of the service/access road shall'be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily. B. Amendment No 744 Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of Amendment No. 744. C. Development Agnment No. 5 Findings: 1. That the Development Agreement is in compliance with California Government Code Section 65864 et seq, and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. 2. That adoption of the Development Agreement would not preclude the City from conducting future discretionary reviews in connection with the project, nor would it prevent the City from imposing conditions or requirements to mitigate significant impacts identified in such reviews provided that the measures do not render the project infeasible. TO: Planning Commission - 23. Condition: 1. Once every 12 months from the date of execution of the Development Agreement, the project proponent or his successor in interest shall prepare and submit for review by the City Council a report demonstrating compliance with the terms of the Agreement, as required by Section 15.45.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Agreement shall be for a term of�8 years. 2. That the initial mass grading of the lower campus site shall be accomplished in a single increment. This initial site preparation work shall include the final grading for the park, the installation of the crib wall and the roadbed preparation of the service road. 3. That upon completion of the initial mass grading of the lower campus,Hoag Hospital shall install interim landscaping for the purpose of controlling erosion, siltation and the production of dust in a manner acceptable to the City Grading Engineer and the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 4. ".0 'plt m�ect�� t•shallASFpasi i iis' esc 6 &66 iista�xUa lei Wt Ct"ty�ewpoxt U ath$ OOD for th'e pfnpnse of defraYing 50 of the 40%of the planned pedestri"jbicycie bridge over Superior AvOnun. If the actuaf cost of the bridge is greater thart estimated,the sum shall be considered to bd the nhligatiort of the hospit 'the actual cast of the bzidga is less, the 0 shall refund the difference to the hoslsital. l'itis deposit slta0-be made.prlur to th 40000 of the inittl �uass grading pert: l his tledsit shall be madefior to the Ssuans the init mass perxnit f£the hlccleJ pdestrlatx bridge is struetedy the.City witbiu 1iTye2x ttteAenti sr�m sTt1t t ?effet l 'tI?ek e asp�tal, ... 5. Hoag Hospital shall desigtrgrade, ' the 0.8 acre linear park subject to the acceptance and approval of the City Grading Engineer z the Parks Beaches and Recreation and > e.P w `slia"ll"fW-dedkif d-6 die Cif+ as appioved"14..die- ty... . .. icilK A e ti€aualty; tEte Rovital shall Undo write the lqasts of park design "d impmveftnt io a m cce_ table the Part;l ches and r reatio Co ►issiutt zd t iLyCupnc i TO: Planning Commission - 24. D. TraMc Study No. 81 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council,Policy $4. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or primary street. E. Variance M. 1180 Findings: 1. It has been demonstrated that the traffic to be generated by the proposed Maximum FAR use will not exceed that which would be generated if a use generating 60 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. per day and 3 trip ends per 1,000 sq.ft. at peak hour, were developed at a floor area ratio of 0.5. Traffic generation has been determined in accordance with City Council Policy S-1. A 0.5 FAR on the lower campus would result in development of 427,104 square feet. Therefore, the Hoag Hospital lower campus is allowed a 0.65 FAR if the lower campus project does not exceed 25,626 average daily trips (427.104 x 60 = 25,626) or 1,281.3 peak hour trips (427.104.x 3 = 1,281.3). Based on-the lower campus trip rates defined in the traffic studies, the daily traffic generated by the lower campus project (including the existing cancer center and child care facility) is 14,489 trips, the AM peak hour traffic is 767 trips and the PM peak hour traffic is 964 trips. 2. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed per City Council Policy S-1 in that standard trip rates for the variety of hospital uses were utilized for the traffic analysis. 3. The building tenants will be restricted to the uses upon which the traffic equivalency was based since the uses permitted by the P-C Text are those upon which the traffic analysis was based. 4. The proposed use and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself to conversion to a higher traffic generating use since hospital structures are not readily convertible to other land uses. S. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the TO: PIa• Commission - 25. • surrounding area since the increased FAR is lower than that permitted in surround- ing residential areas. The heights of the buildings are similar to the Villa Balboa structures and are also similar in height to other commercial development on Coast Highway. 6. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding area in that Hoag Hospital has been established in the area for many years. As noted in No. 5 above, the heights of the buildings proposed are compatible with the area. 7. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views since a complex set of height restrictions are proposed to address view preservation and enhancement from the existing bicycle/pedestrian path between Villa Balboa/Sea Faire and the lower campus. The height limits proposed would establish a set of height zones which are designed to allow the greatest height of buildings which would not result in significant view impacts. Additional restrictions to the permitted height limits for the upper campus are also proposed, which currently is in the 375 foot height limitation zone. A computer view analysis was prepared as part of the environmental review process to assess the impact to views. This study reveals that the height limits proposed generally result in preservation or enhancement of views. ' nNteasavn L the i Rd at R g 4 ig . would esuk ep = �M EffAt be defined far these impaets. it is, f WOLIM-90-Mmfted to 25-f 45}feet: C /A f The height zones proposed for the upper campus area are a substantial reduction from the existing height limit of 375 feet. 8. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade covered parking,taking into consideration site characteristics including,but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources, since the Hoag Hospital lower campus is adjacent to the hospital facility which has been in existence for many years. As concluded by the Environmental Impact Report, there are no environmen- tal effects engendered by the project which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 0 • . . TO: Planning Commission.- 26. Condition: i. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits on the lower campus, Hoag Hospital shall record a covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, committing the applicant and all successors-in-interest to use of the property for the hospital uses envisioned in the Master Plan. PLT. \PC\AMD\3A744.FRC • Attachment 2 TO. Planning Commission - 27, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMEND- MENT RE-ZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTE- RIAN FROM THE A-P-H AND U DISTRICTS TO THE P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT, AMENDING CHAPTER 2om OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES MAP AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE 26/35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION DISTRICT AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 744) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS,the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will preserve and increase public access and views of the ocean consistent with the policies and intent of the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the height by the basic height limit in any zone, with particular attention given to the location of the structures on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas since the fundamental design of the height limits established is to provide for the preservation and enhancement I i TO: Pl•g Commission - 28. of public views from the existing pedestrian/bicycle trail on the southerly property line of Villa Balboa. The basic height limit of the lower campus would allow for the construction of 32 foot high buildings on the upper pad level of the lower campus site. The height zone system provides for location sensitive height limits. Other provisions of the P-C Text in regards to landscaping and the enhanced setback and articulation requirements described above, will assure the quality treatment of setback and open space areas; and WHEREAS, the increased building height will. result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the buildings and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The increased building height will allow for taller structures which, if subject to the enhanced setback and articulation requirement described in the previous section, will result in a more desirable 'architectural treatment in that stronger and more varied horizontal and vertical articulation will be required; and WHEREAS, the increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structures and existing developments or open spaces, since particular attention has been given to the total bulk of the structures including both horizontal requirements. The provisions of the P-C Text work in concert to create a development envelope which insures that no undesirable or abrupt scale relationships will result from implementation of the project. These include,height limits designed to preserve and enhance public views, enhanced setback and vertical and horizontal articulation requirements, and landscaping requirements. The total bulk of the building is specifically limited by the building bulk limits defined in .the Newport Beach General Plan; and L TO: Planning Commission - 29, WHEREAS,the structures will have no more floor area than could have been otherwise achieved. The development standards will assure compliance with the General Plan intensity limits; and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the information contained therein has been considered by the Planning Commission in making its recommendation to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to rezone the property known as Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian from the A-P-H and U Districts to the P-C (Planned Community) District, amending Chapter 20.02 of the. Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the Height Limitation Zones Map and the legal description of the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District to place the lower campus wholly within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District,and adopting Planned Community District Regulations described as Planning Commission Amendment No. 744 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached, and as modified below: 1. Item 10 on Page 3 shall be amended to add that landscaping of exposed slopes shall be installed within 30 days of the completion of grading. 0 i ' TO: Planning Commission - 30. 2. The definition of Site Area for the purposes of determining development area on Page 5 shall be revised to define Gross Site Area as the parcel area after dedications. 3. The statistical analysis on Page 10 shall be revised to reduce the allowed lower campus and total development by 22,651 square feet required by the deletion of the 0.8 acre park dedication area from the floor area calculations. Additionally,the building bulk limit shall be specified as 0.90 for all structures including above grade covered parking on the lower campus. 4. Section CA on Page 15 shall be revised to include area D. 5. Section C.S. on Page 15 shall be revised to delete area D. 6. The Development Criteria Map shall be revised to place height zones D and G into the 25 (45) height limit. 7. Section D.1.A on Page 15 shall be revised to define the upper campus western service road boundary setback as being the easterly edge of the existing service road ...:" `' `H4 ff Hinitatien that the efitieal criuricii-aaQisiv" not eMen-d beyend the westedy line of the exis��- 8. Section D.2. on Page 17 shall be revised as follows: The setback on West Coast Highway ?� ps t gn4)ball be 21 ,t As4ellews: '. in heiglA)l ors a , , ..et l�itta>��v�rtl"r,�l acu� au s��1 requlro�" b�llci�n""" ,6asterly of the sipal rwiNU 150 feet of the West Coast Ht hws �ran ��fpilows� ufV)dov to I8revi "ui&ei tt u�o� i iat xti tC dai3i inquired. if the 1st flor exceeds 18 feet in height,It Shs11 be �&R� t t�the articulation requirements af'the 2xid Flopr1 u-Flaox(i 1a Vf-bi liieiAt)<A mitil u—m WZ -07- g ltling frontage shall be m3foulatetl in such 4 *=61' esuli in an ave rags 2nd Roar setback of—fee�q TO: Planning Commission - 31. ' ��'ivax "�"ove: " nizrafstti�xri� iif`" �u" "i�s'e fiui� ar Qar� e s arlc Of Mann"ato in such a #teet as to r st Ct n 0.66ack bfilr+est f ive"s"�y pf'4 e s # C tztillt Afeep In addition,vertical articulation shall be requirednr tirt"tiixig rff t y��'4an-�Mor buildings within f50 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: pff�iii r:"l x"tti S"fedi tfi he Pif'n additiurtal'ifflav toga od, if the,Ist P70or exceeds 19 fea iu helou It sball PO i4-1j t tt�OT ardcwadrirt requ rexnettts' the t:tt aMs 2M Ind0 •( ' ,5K41'Q£"Elie braiding frontage shall be- ardmiated In such a wafter as to r��t in an avers 2nd floor sethack of 40 feetR �i`" ontage shah be 4rtfaftted in such Manner as to restttt i� erafge r t flooraxKi a aw i et xa k,of 4S�e�£� _b rc i�ir filaft of the building wall shall be vafied in this w-ey-.- .,.. .. ...v,........ .�..... •r.w ..., 1. y it . -. it t+ dex fo avoid any fuure stcares to s { that Poet of West Coast Mgh y)fmru preseutittg an nttae000" linear mass,no single stmcture shalt he gireater*an 250 unear £eft in vAdth, Additionally, Zt141.a of the linear frontage within 150 feet of West Coast f�ig�x?a�wall b opea Ltd;yli eg pig These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section IX. 9. Sections D.3. and 4. on Page 17 shall be consolidated and the Newport Boulevard setback shall be defined as 25 feet. 10. Section D.5 on Page 17 shall be renumbered to DA TO: Planning Commission - 32. 11. Section F. on Page 17 small be revised to read as follows: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit plans which illustrate that major mechanical located on the roof of any i not be loc struc ture on equipment coil r such buildings will have clean the Lower Campus. Rather, g rooftops. Minor rooftop equipment necessary for operating purposes will comply with all building height criteria, and shall be concealed and screened to blend into the building roof using materials compatible with roofing materials. 12. Item J. shall be added on Page 18, as follows: Mechanical and Trash Enclosures Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit plans to the City Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and trash areas will be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 13. Item H shall be added on Page 18, as follows: Internal Circulation Y 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Master Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall implement a pilot program that controls usage of the Upper and Lower Campus service roads during non- working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the majority of vendors deliver products (other than emergency •00 a.m. working hours i.e.7.products) g P )duringwo to 8:00 p.m.), signage to restrict use of the road by Hospital employees, physicians, patie nts and visitors P during non-working hours and other methods to restrict d g g use. The Hospital will also request that vendors not deliver (i.e. scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. ll This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. The results of this program will be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit. If such results indicate that such controls do not significantly impact the operations of the Hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City will require that the program TO: Planning Commission - 33. be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures will be investi- gated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent residential units. 2. The lower campus service road shall include provisions for controlled access to limit usage to physicians and staff, and service vehicles. 14. Item I. shall be added on Page 18, as follows: Loading Dock Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any building or expansion of 10,000 square feet or more on the upper campus, with the exception of the expansion of the emergency room previously authorized by'the City, the project sponsor shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock areas. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required prior to the issuance of building or grading permits on the upper campus (except the aforementioned emergency room expan- sion). The plans for the emergency room expansion shall include the submittal of a similar study. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. z en a }6 The development Criteria Map on Page 16 shall be revised to reflect the aforementioned changes. 341fl. Section IX shall be added: SITE PLAN REVIEW. A. PURPOSE. The City Council finds that development on the West Coast Highway frontage of the lower campus of Hoag Hospital may have the potential to affect the aesthetics of the West Newport area as viewed from surrounding arterial roadways. The effect of this section is to establish a Site Plan Review requirement by the Planning Commission for certain TO: Pla�ng Commission - 34. individual projects which are proposed by the hospital to differ from the setback, horizontal and vertical articulation require- ments as set forth in Section V.D.2.to insure that these projects conform with the objectives of the General Plan and the Master Plan for Hoag Hospital. B. FINDINGS. The City finds, determines and declares that the establishment of Site Plan Review procedures con- tained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that the development of Hoag Hospital proceeds in a manner which will not result In inadequate and poorly planned landscape areas, excessive building bulk on arterial roadways, inappropriate placement of structures and impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in the area. C. APPLICATION. Site Plan Review approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for any new structure or the addition to an existing structure which does not conform to the provisions of Section V.D.2. D. PLANS AND DIAGRAMS TO BE SUBMITTED. The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: (1) A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrange- ment of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off-street parking and off-street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off-street parking and loading areas,the lo- cation of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. (2) A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be re- moved and proposed to be retained; and indicat- ing the amount, type, and location of landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for irrigation. 0 TO: Planning Commission - 35. (3) Grading plans when necessary to ensure develop- ment properly related to the site and to surround- ing properties and structures. (4) Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. (5) Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. (6) Any other plans,diagrams,drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compli- ance with the purposes of this chapter. E. FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application for Site Plan Review under this chapter. F. STANDARDS. In addition to the general purposes set forth in sub-section B, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the site plan review procedures established by this Section shall be applied accord- ing to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: (1) The development is in compliance with all other provisions of the Planned Community Develop- ment Criteria and District Regulations (P-C Text); (2) Development shall be compatible with the char- acter of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; (3) Development shall be sited and designed to maximize the aesthetic quality of the project as viewed from surrounding roadways and proper- ties, with special consideration given to the mass and bulk of buildings and the streetscape on West Coast Highway; i TO: Planning Commission - 36. (4) Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways,landscaping and other site features shall give proper consider- ation to functional aspects of site development. G. PUBLIC HEARING-REQUIRED NOTICE. A.public hearing shall be held on all Site Plan Review applications. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days before the hearing date, postage prepaid, using addresses from the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses, to owners of property within a radius of three hundred ,(300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this Section. In addition to the mailed notice, such hearing shall be posted in not less than two conspicuous places on or close to the property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. H. . ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this Section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Condi- tions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved,the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Site Plan Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Site Plan Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commis- sion action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, or any other person, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. I. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the TO. Planning Commission - 37. City Council by the applicant or any other person, at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Planning Department. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based and shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. J. ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council, and the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. The decision of the City Council is final. K EXPIRATION AND REVOCATION OF SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVALS. (1) Expiration. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall expire within 24 months from the date of approv- al if a building permit has not been issued prior to the expiration date and subsequently con- struction is diligently pursued until completion, unless at the time of approval the Planning Commission has specified a different period of time. (2) Violation of Terms. Any Site Plan Review granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such Site Plan Review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection there- with. (3) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on any proposed revocation after giving written notice to the permittee at least ten days prior to the hearing, and shall submit its recom- mendations to the City Council. The City Coun- cil shall act thereon within 60 days after receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion. TO: Planning Commission - 38. ADOPTED this _day of . 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Gary J. Di Sano, CHAIRMAN BY Norma Glover, SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit 1 PL1`...PC\AMD\A744.RM HLCaunnenb o TO: Plaa• Commission - 39. • STRAW VOTE CHECKLIST: Issue 1: Site Area. Staff has suggested a change to the proposed P-C Text (No. 2), as follows: The definition of Site Area for the purposes of determining development area on Page 5 shall be revised to define Gross Site Area as the parcel area after dedications. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the elimination of the park dedication area from the definition of Gross Site Area. Shall the definition of gross site area include the area to be dedicated to the City for the view park? Yes ❑ No ❑ • • 1 - TO: Planting Commission - 40. Issue 2: Service road noise studies and restrictions. Staff has suggested as an environmental mitigation measure (No. h5 and dh dddltibiltd provision in the P-C 'Text (No. 13) the Ibilowing Piovisiriti: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any of the proposed Mntler Plan facilities, the project sponsor shall impleinent a pilot program that monkors Arid manages usage of the Upper and Lower Campus seWice roads dating non- working hours. Such controls may include requesting that the inajotiry of vendors deliverproducts (other than emtergency produets)during working hours 7.•06 a.m.to 8.00 p.m.), signage'to restrict use of the road by hospital employees,phy- sicians, patients and visitors during non-working hours, and otter riethdds by which to restrict use. The hospital will also request that vendors not deliver(Le., scheduled and routine deliveries) on the weekends. This restriction specifically applies to scheduled and routine deliveries. ?'lie re- sults of this program will be submitted to the City for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. If such results indicate that such controls signiftcantly impact the operations of the hospital, and provided that requests for specified vendor delivery times is consistent with future Air Quality Management Plan procedures, the City would require that the program be implemented as hospital policy. If operation impacts are significant, other mitigation measures would be investigated at that time to reduce service road impacts to the adjacent TesideritiaT units. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the imposition of this provision. Shall this measure be required in the environmental mitigation measures and the P-C Text? Yes ❑ No ❑ TO: I ann ng Commission - 41. • Issue 3: Building Heights Near Cancer Center. Staff has suggested various changes (Nos. 4, 5, and 6) to the P-C Text and development criteria map which would lower the height limits near the cancer center. The primary change is as follows: The Development Criteria Map shall be revised to place height zones D and G into the 25 (45) height limit. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the lowering of height limits from those originally proposed for zones D and G. Shall the height limits in zones D and G be established at 25 (45)? Yes ❑ No ❑ Issue 4: Sound Attenuation Study for Loading Docks. Staff has suggested a change to the P-C Text (No. 14), as follows: Loading Docks Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for any building or expansion of 10,000 square feet or more on the upper campus, with the exception of the expansion of the emergency room previously authorized by the City, the project sponsor shall submit an architectural and acoustical study assessing the feasibility and sound attenuation implications of enclosing the loading dock areas. If enclosure is determined to be physically feasible and effective in reducing noise impacts along the service access road, enclosure shall be required prior to the issuance of building or grading permits on the upper campus (except the aforementioned emergency room expansion). The plans for the emergency room expansion shall include the submittal of a similar study. Any enclosure required pursuant to this requirement may encroach into any required setback upon the review and approval of a Modification as set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Hoag Hospital disagrees with this requirement. Shall this measure be required in the P-C Text? Yes ❑ No 0 TO: Planning Commission - 42. • Issue S. West Side Upper Campus Setback. Staff has provided in various reports two options for the setback on the west side of the upper campus. These options are the easterly side of the existing service access road or the westerly line of the existing tower. Hoag Hospital,has agreed to a setback of the easterly line of the service access road. What shall be the setback for the critical care surgery addition? The easterly line of the service access road ❑ The westerly line of the existing tower 4 Issue 6: Term of Development Agreement. Staff has suggested as a condition (No. 1) of the Development Agreement the following provision: The Agreement shall be for a term of 25 years. Hoag Hospital would agree to a term of 30 years. What shall be the term of the Development Agreement? 20 years ❑ 25 years ❑ 30 years ❑ 40 years ❑ r1 0 0 TO: Planning Commission - 43. Issue 7: West Coast Highway Setbacks and Articulation Requirements. Staff has suggested detailed building setback and building articulation requirements as revisions to the P-C Text (No. 8). As discussed in the staff report, after discussions with the hospital, staff has modified its original suggestion as follows: The setback on West Coast Highway easterly of the hospital entry signal shall be a minimum of 20 feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings easterly of the signal within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor. Up to 18 feet in height no additional articulation is required If the 1st floor exceeds 18 feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor (up to 32' in height): A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floorsetback of 25 feet. 3rd Floor and above. A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 30 feet. The setback on West Coast Highway westerly of the hospital entry signal shall be a minimum of 35 feet. In addition, vertical articulation shall be required for buildings westerly of the signal within 150 feet of the West Coast Highway frontage, as follows: 1st Floor. Up to 18 feet in height no additional articulation is required If the 1st floor exceeds 18 feet in height, it shall be subject to the articulation requirements of the 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor (up to 32' in height): A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 2nd floorsetback of 40 feet. 3rd Floor and above. A minimum of 25% of the building frontage shall be articulated in such a manner as to result in an average 3rd floor and above setback of 45 feet. In order to avoid any future structures in this area (within 150 feet of West Coast Highway)from presenting an unacceptable linear mass, no single structure shall be greater than 250 linear feet in width. Additionally, 20 %of the linear frontage TO: Planning Commission - 44. z within 150 feet of West Coast Highway shall be open and unoccupied by buildings. These requirements may be altered for individual buildings, if requested by the hospital, through the site plan review process defined in Section Ix Hoag Hospital agrees with the basic approach of this requirement but disagrees with certain specifics. The hospital would find the requirements acceptable with the following changes: The setback easterly of the signal should be 15 feet, with the articulated average setbacks on the second and third floor 20 and 25 feet respectively and the articulation percentage of 20%. The setback westerly of the signal should be 30 feet with no articulation requirement. What shall be the setback and articulation setback requirements easterly of the entry signal? Staff suggestion: 20 ft., 25 ft., 30 ft. ❑ Hoag Request: 15 ft., 20 ft., 25 ft. ❑ What shall be the setback westerly of the entry signal? Staff suggestion: 35 feet ❑ Hoag request: 30 feet ❑ What shall the articulation percentage be? Staff suggestion: 25% w ❑ Hoag request: 20% ❑ Shall articulation requirements westerly of the entry signal be imposed? Staff suggestion: Yes ❑ Hoag request: No ❑ TO: Plaa• Commission - 45. Issue 8: Setback on Newport Boulevard. Staff has suggested a change to the proposed P-C Text (No. 9), as follows: Sections D.3. and 4. on Page 17 shall be consolidated and the Newport Boulevard setback shall be defined as 25 feet. Hoag Hospital disagrees with the imposition of this provision. What shall be the setback on Newport Boulevard? Staff suggestion: 25 feet ❑ Hoag request: No setback for 500 feet from Hospital Road, 15 feet for remainder ❑ Issue 9: Bicycle bridge costs. Staff has suggested as an environmental mitigation measure (No. 99) and as a condition of the development agreement (No. 4) the following provision: The project sponsor shall deposit into an escrow account established by the City of Newport Beach $200,000 for the purpose of defraying 50% of the costs of the planned pedestrian/bicycle bridge over SuperiorAvenue. If the actual cost of the bridge is greater than estimated, the sum shall be considered to be the full obligation of the hospital. If the actual cost of the bridge is less, the City shall refund the difference to the hospital. This deposit shall be made prior to the issuance of the initial mass grading permit. If the bicycle/pedestrian bridge is not constructed by the City within 10 years, the entire sum shall be refunded by the City to the Hospital Hoag Hospital disagrees with the imposition of this provision. Shall this measure be required in the environmental mitigation measures and the conditions of the development agreement? Yes ❑ No 0 Attachment 4 260 Cagney Lane No. 320 Newport Beach, CA 92663 7 February 1991 Gary J. DeSano, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659 Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: At the February 6th meeting regarding the Hoag Hospital expansion, Mr. Evins, of Hoag Hospital, in taking exception to the mitigation measures cited Item U. I would like 'to shed some light on this issue. Under the title, Physical Improvements made by Hoag hospital for Benefit of Villa Balboa Neighbors, Section IV, Item C. Hoag has taken steps to reduce traffic on the service road by posting signs and, by erecting barricades and we are grateful to them for that. However, I would like to tell you what has been created by the barricades. The barricades are positioned quite a distance into the roadway thereby creating a dilemma for the driver who has already entered the slol um type race course. He either has to make a U- turn, or as many have opted to do, take on the slolum type course to we how quickly he can manipulate his vehicle through without hitting any of the obstacles. These obstacles are smaller type barricades within the zone placed like a ski slolum course. I have observed vehicles running this course and actually increasing reasing their speed to meet the challenge. 1(0 rlt. . w. vLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 111992 AM PM 7181911D 111112111213141516 COMMISSIONERS • November 7, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX evidence that the level of prostitution in the City is going t e changed by the implementation of the subject Ordinance,an ere is no statistical evidence from other cities that ther was a reduction in prostitution after the Ordinances were ap oved. He stated that there is a class of people who are attem ng to stay in business, and somehow those people are associ d with people who are involved with adult massage parlors, d they are being subjected to a very restrictive Ordinance. a determined that there has to be a way to separate the o different types of businesses so the City can accom ish what is necessary. Commissioner Pomeroy said the is trying to manipulate information so the City can eli ' ate a massage parlor overall irrespective if the legitimate on are involved because the City is concerned with the establish ents that are not legitimate. Commissioner Debay d' not support the motion inasmuch as the Ordinance does not dress the problem. Chairman Di S o did not support the motion inasmuch as he would have r ommended changes to Provisions No. 3 and No. 4, of the use permit fee, and the changes would have put and a wai Zthe rd' ance out of context of what was originally intended. Ayes * ;�/NZD was voted on to approve Amendment No. 742. MOTION Noes Absent Y f t ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add 1 Business Following a discussion with staff, the Planning Commission set Traffic Study No. 81 and Amendment No. 744 (the Master Plan for PH set development on the Hoag Hospital site) for public hearing at its for 12/5/91 meeting of December 5, 1991. s s x ADJOURNMENT. 1:10 a.m. Adjourn NORMA GLOVER, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -56-